U.  S.  DEPARTMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE 

BUREAU  OF  ANIMAL  INDUSTRY— BULLETIN  No.  47,  HART  II. 

D.   E.  SALMON,   D.  V.  M.,  Chief  of  Bureau. 


THE  HOG  INDUSTRY 


SELECTION,  FEEDING,  AND  MANAGEMENT. 
RECENT  AMERICAN  EXPERIMENTAL  WORK. 
STATISTICS  OF  PRODUCTION  AND   TRADE. 


BY 


GEORGE   M.   ROMMEL,  B.  S.  A., 

EXPERT  IN  ANIMAL  HUSBANDRY,  BUREAU  OF  ANIMAL  INDUSTRY. 


WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE. 

1904. 


TIIK    BOG    INDUSTRY. 


(.>7 


CORN  AND  CORN  SUBSTITUTES. 


To  the  fanner  <»!'  the  com  bell  those  experiments  with  grains  which 
may  lake  the  place  of  corn  for  feeding  purposes  in  times  of  scarcity 
are  always  interesting.  In  seasons  such  as  thai  of  L901,  when  a  sum- 
mer of  extreme  heal  and  Little  or  no  rain  follows  a  spring  of  normal 
conditions,  the  short  corn  crop  is  frequently  counterbalanced  by  a 
bountiful  supply  of  small  grains.  .Many  farmers  at  such  times  rely 
on  wheat,  barley,  oats,  and  rye  to  carry  their  stock  to  marketable 
condition.  Outside  the  corn-growing  districts  such  experiments  are 
of  even  more  importance,  for  the  small  grains  are  often  grown  in 
great  abundance  and  form  the  basis  of  all  rations. 

Wheat  compared  with  corn. — At  the  Indiana  Station"  Plumb  and 
Anderson  fed  four  lots  of  4  Chester  White  pigs  to  study  the  rela- 
tive value  of  feeding  wheat  and  corn,  both  alone  and  in  combination. 
The  pigs  were  farrowed  late  in  October,  and  the  experiments  began  as 
soon  as  they  were  weaned,  which  was  early  in  January.  They  were 
out  of  two  sows  that  were  litter  sisters.  Lot  I  received  whole  corn; 
Lot  II  received  dry  whole  wheat;  Lot  III  received  a  ration  consisting 
of  equal  parts  of  corn  and  wheat ;  Lot  IV  received  soaked  whole  wheat. 

Up  to  March  6  they  received  10  pounds  of  separator  milk  as  a  noon 
feed  and  after  that  date  12  pounds  of  the  same  dairy.  They  were  fed 
one  hundred  and  five  days.     The  results  were  as  follows: 

Wheat  compared  with  corn  for  pigs. 


Lot. 


I.... 

II... 
III.. 
TV.. 


Ration. 


wJS  height  at  Weight  at 
pig?    ^ginning, 


close. 


Num-  T-i     j 

ber    Average  Fee1lper 


Corn 

Wheat  (dry) 

Corn  and  wheat,  equal  parts 
Wheat  (soaked) 


i  Pounds. 

4  185 

4  175 

4  174 


Pounds. 
673 


646 


105 
1()5 
105 
105 


Pounds. 
1.16 
1.02 
1.12 
1.05 


Pounds. 
312 
355 
323 
355 


a  Digestible  dry  matter. 

At  the  Utah  Station,  Foster  and  Merrill6  conducted  similar  work  in 
comparing  ground  wheat  with  corn  meal.  Two  lots  of  3  pigs  each 
were  fed,  in  covered  pens,  all  the  ground  grain  they  would  eat.  The 
results  follow: 

Ground  wheat  compared  with  corn  meal  for  pigs. 


Ration. 

Num- 
ber of 
pigs. 

Weight  at 
beginning. 

Weight  at 
close. 

Num- 
ber of 
davs 
fed. 

Average 
daily 
gain. 

Feed  per 

100 

pounds 

gain. 

Corn  meal               

3 
3 

Pounds. 

290 
291 

Pounds. 

519             91 

Pounds. 
0.85 
1.20 

Pounds. 

55s 

Ground  wheat 

615 

91 

4t»4 

«Bul.  No.  67 
8396—  Xo.  47—04 


*>  Bui.  No.  70. 


98 


I'd   REAU    OF    A  MM  A 


MM    -  I  Rl  . 


At  the  usual  price  of  corn  ami  wheat,  7.">  <-cni>  per  hundredweight, 
ili<-  cost  <>f  gai  .  r  i  he  corn-fed  lot  is  Lri\  «-ii  as  $4.18  per  LOO  pounds, 
and  that  <>t'  the      teat-fed  Lot  at  13.  18  per  LOO  pounds. 

Ai  the  close  of  this  test  a  second  one  \^h  made,  but  the  ration  <>f 
the  first  lot  was  made  equal  parts  of  corn  meal  ami  pea  meal  after  the 
middle  of  the  test.     The  results  follow: 

On  >ii,  ai  wheat  compared  with  <-<>/n  and  y,<</  meals  for  pigs. 


Nuni- 


Pounds 


Corn  and  pea  meals 
Ground  wheal 


£™5    Weightat    Weightat    ber  of  A™r»P   f«dper 


ber  <>! 


beginning. 


Pound*. 
880 


close 


/'•muils. 


l.-l 


daily 

gain. 


.     hi  nils. 
116  LU  4<i7 

U6  4«« 


Wheat  compared  with  various  other  grains. — At  the  Nebraska 
tion,  Smith  '  fed  eight  lots  of  ('>  pigs  each  to  study  the  comparative 
feeding  value  of  wheat,  rye,  and  corn,  both  alone  and  in  combina- 
tion. Charcoal  and  Lime  were  fed  occasionally.  Four  pigs  in  each 
lot  were  of  the  bacon  type — Tamworth  and  Yorkshire — and  two  were 
of  the  fat,  or  lard,  type,  or  "  block  "  type,  as  the  author  expresses  it. 
Each  lot  had  an  8  by  12  foot  cement-floored  pen  in  a  closed  shed,  with 
an  8  by  L6  foot  yard  adjoining.  The  ground  feed  was  mixed  into  a 
thick  slop  after  being  weighed;  the  soaked  wheat  was  weighed  before 
being  soaked.  The  first  cost  of  the  pigs  was  $4. 50 per  LOO  pounds  and 
they  \\<-re  sold  on  the  farm  at  15. 52^  per  100  pounds.  Coin  and  wheal 
were  charged  at  55  cents  per  bushel,  rye  at  50  cents  per  bushel,  and 
shorts  at  $1  B  per  ton.  Grinding  was  charged  at  8  cents  per  LOO  pounds 
lor  wheat  and  rye  and  6  cents  per  LOO  pounds  for  coin.  A  statement 
of  the  results  follows: 

Wheal  compared  with  otfu  r  grains  for  pigs. 


Ration 


Whole  wheat,  dry 

Whole  wheat,  soaked  L8 

to  '-'i  hours   



(;r<>un<l  wheal  and  corn, 

eqnal  parts    

Ground  wheal  and  rye, 

•  ■•iiiiii  parts      

.  ad  w  heal  and 
shorts,  equal  pa 

•  l  corn      

Ground  rye 


vnni    Average  Avpr.,  Num  A.ver-  T  ,. 

,N,!m;.    weight      ,,:     ; w  Total    ber  of  age  V     ,  perlOO 

atbSgin-  .    V.^  gain,      days  daily  **  /,-unds 

ning.  ted.  gain.  ,u  "•  gain. 


01 


Lbs. 


.70 


8,817 


01 

.ii 

01 

.71 

'.'1 

8U 


Profit 
per  lot. 


. 


7.81 


»Bul.  No.  re 


THE    HOG    INDUSTRY. 


99 


In  this  experiment  ground  wheat  gave  the  greatest  returns  for  the 
least  amount  of  grain,  but  did  not  return  so  large  a  profit  as  whole 
soaked  wheat,  owing  to  the  expense  of  grinding.  The  nndesirabiiity 
of  feeding  whole  wheat  dry  seems  to  be  indicated  by  these  results. 
Ground  wheat  and  corn  gave  considerably  better  returns  than  ground 
Wheal  and  rye  or  ground  wheat  and  shorts.  Ground  corn  and  rye 
alone  do  not  appear  to  advantage. 

These  results  show  wheat  to  have  a  feeding  value  fully  equal  to 
that  of  corn,  and  are  in  line  with  the  work  that  has  been  previously 
published  on  this  subject.  In  the  first  Utah  test,  wheat  showed  a 
very  much  better  and  cheaper  gain  than  corn,  but  when  pea  meal 
was  added  to  the  corn-meal  ration,  wheat  did  not  have  so  great  an 
advantage.  The  Nebraska  results  are  specially  favorable  to  wheat 
feeding. 

Feeding  frosted  wheat. — Nine  experiments  with  wheat  that  had 
been  more  or  less  damaged  by  frost  were  conducted  at  the  Central 
Experimental  Farm  of  Canada.05  The  grain  was  fed  alone,  ground, 
unground,  and  in  combination  with  other  grains  and  skim  milk. 

The  following  shows  the  results  and  conclusions  from  the  experi- 
ments : 

Frosted  wheat  for  pigs. 


i 

i 

H 

Ration. 

How  prepared. 

'Pi 

! 

pi 

+3 
rfl       • 

SB 

©•£ 
ci  © 

•a 
1§ 

© 
> 

< 

d 

'3 

+3 

© 

3 
P 

g 

© 

> 

«! 

<B 

©£< 

s 

'3 
©.s 

© 
> 
< 

a 

3    . 

2  a 

as 

©  © 
g  © 
> 

< 

o 
o    . 

^H    3 

©  O 

©  a 
fa 

1 
? 

Wheat 

do     

Ground,     soaked      12 

hours. 
Whole,        soaked      42 

hours. 
do 

4 

4 
4 
5 
4 

Lbs. 
185 

186 

18T 

61 

104 

Lbs. 
275 

273 

278 
165 
192 

Lbs. 
90 

86 

92 

104 

88 

77 
77 
77 
120 
56 

Lbs. 
1.17 

1.11 

1.19 

.87 

1.57 

Lbs. 
479 

570 

557 

441 

233 

1,011 

442 

326 

53 

207 

268 
250 

L6s. 
530 

659 

3 

Wheat,  barley,  and 

pease. 
Wheat 

607 

4 

Ground,      soaked      12 

hours. 
do 

423 

J do 

[Skim  milk... 

265 

b 

... 

1,251 
526 

445 

85 

6 

7 

Wheat Ground,      soaked      18 

hours 
f Wheat  and  barley..    Ground,     soaked      30 
<                                           hours. 
[Carrots 

12 

21 

103 
117 

187 
IT, 

84 
62 

84 
84 

1,00 
.73 

8 

Barley,  wheat,  rye, 

and  bran. 
("Barley,  rye,  wheat 

Ground,      soaked      12 

hours. 
do 

36 
31 

54 

108 

108 
191 

54 

83 

105 
83 

.51 
1.00 

385 
323 

9 

•1    and  bran, 
[skimmilk 

300 

«  Bui.  No.  33. 


LOO 


BURI  \i      01      \MM  \1.    CNDUSTItt  . 


The  fact  that  this  wheat  had  been  injured  by  frost  does  doI  seem  i<» 
bave  bad  a  serious  effect  <»n  its  feeding  value.  In  the  majority  of 
Instances  the  gains  made  were  satisfactory,  and  tin  se  cases  in  which 
a  large  amount  of  grain  was  required  for  i"11  pounds  of  gain  were 
generally  \\\\\\  bogs  <>f  considerable  maturity  and  consequently 
expensh e  feeders. 

Barley  compared  with  corn.  -The  following  results  were  obtained 
with   barley  alone  in  comparison   with  corn  alone  in   South   Dakota, 

Colorado,  and  Canada  : 


Hurl,  a  compared  with  corn  for  pigs. 


Num- 

Num- 

weight 

begin- 
ning. 

Total 
gain. 

Num- 
ber of 

:  per  100  poo 

Bation. 

ber  of 

daily 

Corn. 

Barley. 

Milk. 

Colorado:  a 

Whole  oon 

5 
S 

Lbt. 
71 
80 

38 

68 
112 

Sfi 

u*. 

380 
430 

-  lln 

•  llll 

Whole  bald  barley 

•  ia 

'80 

.  (9 

Ground  common  bar- 
ley                                  4 

•  1M 

South  Dakota:'- 
Corn  meal  .   . 

1               B 

- 

56 

L53 

1 .  58 

.70 

1.17 

1.30 

n 

LIS 
L00 

(16 

Barley     

2 

0 

( Ontario  Agricultural  Col- 
lege:  ■■ 

Corn 

Barley 

Central     Experimental 

Farm.  ( >tta\va:  & 
Whole  corn 

1 
1 
1 
1 

8 

4 
4 

4 

n 
74 

954 

MO 

in 

0] 
112 

M 
112 

<  t  round  com 

Whole  barley  

Ground  barley 

"TV 

»Bul.  No. 
All.  Rpt.s 

41 1. 
68. 
..  1890  a 

id  una 

dBuL 

-  Qua 

This  table  does  nol  present  an  accurate  comparison  between  barley 
and  corn,  as  skim  milk  enters  into  the  results  in  five  instances  when 
barley  was  fed,  as  against  only  three  instances  where  corn  was  fed, 
l)iu  the  results  command  interest  in  showing  that  the  value  of  barley 
for  hog  feeding  compares  very  favorably  with  thai  of  corn. 

Barley  compared  with  corn,  in  combinations. — The  South  Dakota 
Experiment  Station  and  the  Ontario  Agricultural  College  have 
reported  tests  with  barley  in  combination  with  such  feeds  as  shorts 
and  middlings. 


[End  of  Part 


THE    HOG    INDUSTRY. 


101 


The  following  table  shows  the  results: 

Barley  compared  with  corn,  with  shorts  <>r  middlings  for  pigs. 


Ration. 


South  Dakota:  a 

Corn  and  shorts  equal 

parts 

Barley     and      shorts 

equal  parts 

Ontario  Agricultural  (_'<  >1- 
lege:  & 
Corn  and  middlings... 

Do 

Do 

Barley  and  middlings. 

Do 

Do 


Num-     Num- 
ber of    ber  of 


test.; 


pigs. 


,\\  erage 
weight 
at  be- 

ginuing. 

I.hs. 

Ill 

115 

as 


42 


Num- 
Total  ber  of 
gain,     days 

fed. 


Lbs. 

840 

1,561 


501 


140 


140 


Average 
daily 
gain. 


Lbs. 

1 .  67 
1.64 

.79 

.817 


.841 
.639 


I'Ycd   ]«■]■  100 

pounds  gain. 

Corn.    ]  Barley. 


Lbs. 
413 


Lbs. 


480 
432 
C424.55 


456 


-  490 
430 
c430. 


a  Bui.  No.  63. 


&  An.  Rpts.,  1899  and  1900. 


c  Dry  matter. 


These  results  are  not  so  favorable  to  barley  as  those  of  the  preced- 
ing table,  but  it  can  also  be  said,  in  the  light  of  these  figures,  that 
barley  is  nearly  if  not  quite  equal  to  corn  for  feeding  pigs,  judging  it 
solely  from  the  standpoint  of  rate  and  economy  of  gain,  and  if  we 
take  into  consideration  its  effect  on  the  carcass,  it  far  surpasses  corn 
as  a  high-grade  pig  feed.  An  experiment  with  purebred  hogs  at  the 
Ontario  Agricultural  College,  which  is  not  included  in  the  foregoing 
table,  compared  barley  and  corn.  Some  middlings  and  skim  milk 
were  given,  but  during  the  last  month  the  grains  were  fed  alone. 
While  receiving  middlings  and  skim  milk  the  pigs  on  corn  made  the 
most  economical  gains,  but  after  the  middlings  and  skim  milk  were 
withdrawn  the  pigs  on  barley  made  the  most  rapid  and  economical 
gains.  The  experience  of  this  institution  places  barley  at  the  head  of 
the  list  of  American  bacon-producing  feeds. 

Ground  wheat  and  barley  compared  with  shelled  corn. — At  the  Colo- 
rado Station  Buffum  and  Griffith a  fed  two  lots  of  pigs  to  compare  the 
feeding  value  of  home-grown  Colorado  grains  with  corn,  which  must  be 
imported  from  States  further  east.  The  pigs  used  were  rather  ordinary 
grade  Poland  Chinas  and  Berkshires,  about  eight  months  old  at  the 
beginning  of  the  experiment.  One  lot  was  fed  shelled  corn ;  the  other, 
a  mixture  of  equal  parts  of  ground  wheat  and  barley.  The  wheat  and 
barley  were  grown  on  the  college  farm.  "  The  wheat  was  the  com- 
mon Defiance  variety  and  was  grown  in  a  field  producing  34  bushels 
per  acre.  The  barley  was  of  the  common  hulled  variety  and  was 
grown  in  a  field  that  produced  25  bushels  per  acre." 

The  pigs  were  kept  in  pens  of  equal  size,  each  pen  with  a  yard 


a  Bui.  No.  74. 


102 


Bl  BEAT]    OF    AMM  \L    inm  -  \\:\  . 


adjoining^  The  pens  were  well  bedded  with  straw.  Water  was  given 
in  abundance  and  occasionally  coal  and  ashes.  The  following  table 
viiow  ^  i  be  results: 


Ground  wheat  and  barley  compared  with  shelled  corn  for  pigs. 


L 

- 

y. 

-    . 
bf  M 

'.  — 

< 

d 
1 

e 

- 
< 

! 

9 

K 

-  E 

M 

► 

amotu 

per  100 
DOtmdt 

s 
-  = 

a 

si 

D 

Katinll. 

ami 

Corn. 

and 
barley. 

•-  a 
I 

( 'crn     

4 
1 

Lb*. 

94.5 

Lb*. 

3 1 .  26 

liil 

Lfc». 

640 

Wheal  and  barley. 

KM 

LIS 

This  experimenl  shows  a  mixture  of  wheal  and  barley  to  be  much 
more  valuable  than  corn  alone  for  pig  feeding.  It  also  speaks  very 
well  for  the  econony  of  pork  production  in  those  States  where  corn 
is  not  a  staple  crop.  Buffum  and  Griffith  state  that  it  is  a  com- 
mon practice  in  the  neighborhood  of  Fort  Collins  for  farmers  to 
exchange  barley  or  wheal  for  corn  on  even  terms,  and  even  when 
corn  is  high  in  price  and  wheat  and  barley  cheaper,  they  will  sell  the 
cheaper  home-grown  grains  and  buy  the  expensive  one.  They  give 
the  average  price  for  ten  years  of  these  -rains  in  Colorado  as 
cents  per  LOO  pounds  for  corn,  '.•'.,.")  cents  per  LOO  pounds  for  wheat, 
and  55,3  cents  per  LOO  pounds  for  barley.  They  ask,  very  pertinently, 
whether  Colorado  feeders  have  not  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  a 
supply  of  concentrates  for  pork  production  when  home-grown  grains 
sell  on  the  farm  for  less  money  per  100  pounds  than  corn  can  be 
purchased  in  town,  and  especially  when  either  wheat  or  barley  is 
equal  to  corn  tor  this  purpose  and  in  combination  are  superior  to  it. 

Oats  compared  with  corn. — Grisdalea  reports  a  comparison  of  <>ats 
and  corn.  The  grain  was  fed  whole  and  was  soaked  fifty-four  hours 
before   feeding.     Both    Lots   received   skim   milk    in   addition.     The 

results  were  as  follows: 


Oats  compared  with  corn  for  pigs. 


■* ^Lt^Astasrfeh^ 

P*«*         nut        ■**•»■        '  «5S  *"»■ 


Feed  per  HKtiM.uiuls 
gain. 


Corn 


Pound*. 

91 


Pound*. 


170 
190 


Pound*. 

lis 


Pound*. 
L90 


Pound*.     Pound*. 

1.11  •»!-. 


P.ul.  No.  88,  Central  Expt.  Farm. 


THE     BOG     INMSTKY.  LOS 

The  results  of  this  test  are  qo1  very  favorable  fco  oats  as  a  pig  feed. 
To  get  even  as  economical  a  gain  as  could  be  had  from  corn  a  feeder 
would  have  to  get  nearly  twice  as  good  gains  as  from  the  oats;  for, 

pound  for  pound  of  nutrient  material,  oats  is  about  twice  as  expen- 
sive as  corn. 

Corn  and  Kafir  corn. — The  Oklahoma  Station"  compared  Indian 
corn  and  Kafir  corn  as  follows : 

Six  pigs,  averaging  about  135  pounds  at  the  beginning  of  the  test, 
were  ted  six  weeks  on  Kafir  heads,  and  made  an  average  daily  gain  of 
1.11  pounds,  requiring  about  665  pounds  of  grain  for  100  pounds  of 
gain. 

Three  pigs,  averaging  220  pounds  at  the  beginning,  made  an  average 
daily  gain  of  1.53  pounds  for  thirty-five  days,  and  required  the  equiva- 
lent of  494  pounds  of  shelled  corn  for  100  pounds  of  gain.  These 
same  pigs  were  then  fed  Kafir  meal  for  two  weeks  and  made  1  pound 
of  gain  per  head  daily,  eating  921  pounds  of  meal  for  each  100  pounds 
of  gain. 

Four  pigs,  averaging  105  pounds,  were  fed  thirty-five  days  on  Kafir 
meal.  They  made  an  average  daily  gain  of  1.21  pounds,  eating  508 
pounds  of  meal  for  100  pounds  of  gain.  For  the  next  two  weeks  they 
were  given  soaked  shelled  corn.  They  made  a  total  gain  of  only  30 
pounds,  eating  707  pounds  of  corn  for  100  pounds  of  gain.  For  the 
next  four  weeks  a  daily  supply  of  green  alfalfa  was  given  with  good 
effect.  A  total  gain  of  140  pounds  was  made,  requiring  365  pounds 
of  grain  for  100  pounds  of  gain. 

Kafir  corn. — The  value  of  Kafir  corn  for  hogs  has  been  studied 
extensively  at  the  Kansas  Station.  Kafir  corn  was  found  to  have  a 
feeding  value  considerably  below  that  of  corn  when  both  grains  were 
fed  alone.  In  Bulletin  No.  95,  Cottrell  states  that  the  average  of  a 
number  of  trials  shows  that  527  pounds  of  Kafir  corn  and  468  pounds  of 
Indian  corn,  respectively,  are  required  per  100  pounds  of  pork  made; 
the  yield  of  pork  per  bushel  of  grain  being  10. 6  pounds  in  case  of 
Kafir  corn  and  11.9  pounds  with  Indian  corn.  On  upland  soil,  how- 
ever, the  average  of  eleven  years  on  the  Kansas  Agricultural  College 
farm  shows  returns  of  46  bushels  per  acre  for  Kafir  corn  and  34^ 
bushels  for  Indian  corn.  Such  returns,  with  gains  as  noted  above, 
indicate  a  pork  yield  per  acre  of  grain  at  487  pounds  for  Kafir  corn 
and  410  pounds  for  Indian  corn.  The  great  value  of  Kafir  corn  is  its 
ability  to  resist  drouth. 

Soy  beans  in  a  Kafir  corn  ration. — In  addition  to  the  lighter  returns 
from  Kafir  corn  than  from  Indian  corn,  this  grain  is  very  constipa- 
ting when  fed  alone,  and  hogs,  especially  young  ones,  tire  of  it  sooner 
than  they  do  of  Indian  corn.     To  remedy  these  difficulties  a  mixture 

«An.  Rpt.,  1898-99. 


ll'l 


i:i   i:i:  \  l      OF     \.MM  M.    ENDU81  \i\  . 


is  advised,  especially  with  feeds  of  a  laxative  nature.  One  of  the 
most  convenient  nitrogenous  concentrates  at  the  bands  of  the  Kansas 
fanner  is  the  boj  bean.     In  a  E  experiments  '  the  effed  of  such 

an  addition  to  both  Indian  corn  and  Kafir  corn  rations  was  studied. 
The  following  summary  of  five  experiments  shows  thai  soy  beans 
increase  gains  and  diminish  the  amount  <»t*  feed  required  for  LOO 
pounds  gain: 

■1  of  soy  Indus  iii  11  Kafir  corn  ration  for  pigs. 


Ration. 


Pint  experiment: 

Kafir  corn  meal 

Kafir  oorn  meal  | 

- 
Beoond  experiment : 

Kafir  cotd  meal. 

Kafir  corn  meal  | 

Boy  bean  meal  | 
Third  experiment: 

Kafir  corn  meal. 

Kafh rn  meal 

Soy  bean  meal 

c>rii  meal 

Corn  meal  { 

Boy  bean  meal 
Fourth  experiment: 

Kafir  corn  meal. . 

Kafir  oorn  meal  | 
bean  meal  J  . 
Fifth  experiment: 

Kafir  corn  meal. 

Kafir  corn  meal  \ 
bean  meal  | 


Lnfrom 


Pounds. 

■ 

108  a 


108.0 
]  16.  7 

129.2 
120.4 

44.1 


Pound*. 


r*.i 


■ 
100  pounds 


Bar 

471 


:*74 


81.0 


The  effect  of  feeding  soy  beans  is  good.  Hogs  receiving  them 
"fatten  rapidly,  look  thrifty,  have  strong  appetites,  and  the  hail 
and  skin  arc  gleBsy,  like  those  of  animals  fed  oil  meal." 

The  following  Bummary  gives  a  more  elaborate  comparison  of  the 
relative  values  of  Kafir  corn  or  Indian  corn  meal  alone  and  in  com- 
bination with  soy  beans."  The  results  are  arranged  in  order  of 
economy  of  gains,  the  total  Bhowing  the  number  of  pounds  of  feed 
required  for  LOO  pounds  of  gain. 


•  Bui.  No,  95,  Kansas  Expt  Sta. 


THE    lioa    INDUSTl^ 


105 


Value  of  soy  heats  in  a  Kafir  corn  or  Indian  com  ration. 


Ration. 

Peed  per 
LOO 

pounds 
gain. 

Ration. 

Peed  per 

LOO 

pounds 

gain. 

Pounds. 
909 

374 
108 

4(H) 
435 
456 
457 
468 
471 
477 
479 
484 
512 
540 
542 

Pounds, 

Kafir  corn  meal,  soaked  fori  y-eight 

Kafir  corn  meal  },  soy  bean  meal 
Kafir  corn  meal  £,  soy  bean  meal  \. . . 
Kafir  corn  meal  g,  soy  bean  meal  ', ... 
Kafir  corn  meal  $,  soy  bean  meal  J... 
Kafir  corn  meal  },  corn  meal  .1 

hours 

Kafir    corn,   whole,   soaked    forty- 
eight  hours 

Kafir  corn  meal,  wet 

Kafir    corn,    whole,    soaked    forty- 
eight  hours. 

642 

550 
559 

632 

Kafir  corn  meal  g,  soy  bean  meal  £.. . 

638 

Kafir  corn,  whole,  wet  -- 

640 

Kafir  corn  meal  -i,  corn  meal  J,  wet.. 

Kafir  corn  meal,  wet  . 

653 

Kafir  corn,  whole,  dry 

655 

Corn  meal,  soaked  forty-eight  hours. 

Kafir  corn  meal,  wet  . 

691 

749 

Average 

Kafir  corn  meal  and  cotton-seed  meal 

52S 

"  The  six  lots  of  hogs  having  soy  beans  as  part  of  their  ration  required  an  average 
of  411  pounds  of  grain  for  100  pounds  of  gain,  while  the  19  lots  not  fed  soy  beans 
required  an  average  of  564  pounds  of  feed  for  100  pounds  of  gain,  an  increase  in 
food  required  of  over  37  per  cent." 

Pease  compared  with  wheat. — The  Utah  Stationa  compared  the  val- 
ues of  pease  and  wheat  during  two  years.  The  pigs  were  confined  in 
yards  and  the  grain  was  given  whole  and  dry.     The  average  of  results 

was  as  follows: 

Pease  compared  with  wheat  for  pigs. 


Ration. 

Total 
weight  at 
beginning. 

Total  gain. 

Feed  per 

100  pounds 

gain. 

Pease 

Pounds. 
147 
136 

Pounds. 
303 

282 

Pounds. 
452 

Wheat. 

476 

Cowpeas  alone  compared  with  corn  alone. — At  the  South  Carolina 
Station6  Newman  and  Pickett  fed  to  compare  cowpeas  with  corn. 
The  pigs  were  from  eight  to  eleven  months  old  and  were  fed  in  pens. 
There  were  3  pigs  in  each  lot. 

The  cowpea-fed  lot  ate  6.7  pounds  of  cowpeas  per  head  daily  and 
made  an  average  daily  gain  for  the  lot  of  3.38  pounds.  They  required 
491  pounds  of  cowpeas  to  produce  100  pounds  of  gain. 

The  corn-fed  lot  ate  9.2  pounds  of  corn  per  head  daily  and  made  an 
average  daily  gain  for  the  lot  of  4.17  pounds.  They  required  602 
pounds  of  corn  to  produce  100  pounds  of  gain. 

With  pork  at  5  cents  per  pound  and  corn  and  cowpeas  yielding  15 
bushels  and  10  bushels,  respectively,  per  acre,  the  value  of  an  acre  of 
corn  in  this  experiment  was  $6.97  and  that  of  an  acre  of  cowpeas  $6.12. 


«  Bui.  No.  70. 


b  Bui.  No.  52. 


L06 


1M   RE  \i      OF    ANIMAL    [NDU8TRY. 


i,  xmnd  cowpeas  and  corn  meal  compared  with  corn  meal, — Ai  the 
Alabama  Station  Duggar  fed  ( wo  Lots  of  pigs  to  compare  the  relative 
value  of  a  ration  of  half  corn  meal  and  half  ground  pease  with  an 
exclusive  corn-meal  ration.  The  piga  used  were  placed  in  covered 
pens,  with  small  yards  ad  joining,  and,  after  a  preliminary  period  of  a 
week,  put  into  the  experiment  which  lasted  sixty  days.  The  results 
are  as  follow  - : 

Ground  cowpi  as  and  corn  m  al  compan  d  with  corn  m<  alfor  j*. 


Ration. 


Oronnd  corn  alone 

Corn  i,  cowpeas  i.. 


days 

Found*. 

H 

108 

go 
60 

LOO 
eaten.       ]*>unds 


Pounds, 


1 '<>u  mis. 

908 


In  this  experiment  the  cowpea  and  corn-meal  ration  made  gau 
percent  more  economical  than,  corn  alone.     The  quality  of  the  pork 
made  was  as  good  as  that  of  corn-fed  pork. 

P  anuts  compan  d  with  corn  meal. — Duggar  a  placed  in  pens  the  pigs 
used  t"  compare  the  values  of  peanut  pasture  and  corn  meal  (see 
j).  L60)  to  make  a  more  accurate  study  of  the  nutritive  values  of 
Spanish  peanuts  and  corn  meal  The  lots  received  the  same  rations, 
except  that  the  peanuts  were  dry  and  fed  unhulled.  The  test  lasted 
six  weeks  with  the  following  results: 

Peanut 8  compared  with  corn  meal  for  pigs. 


Ration. 


Peanuts  I,  corn  meal  i 

Peannts  only 

Corn  meal  only 


Num- 
ber of 
pigs. 


Num- 
ber of 
days 
fed. 


Total 
gain. 


wf" 


dailv 
gain. 


Pounds.     Pound. 
M  0.91 

.47 
.10 


pounds 
gain. 


This  experiment  shows  the  best  daily  gains  from  the  combination  of 
peanuts  and  corn  meal,  and  shows  the  best  returns  for  lVcd  eaten  by 
the  pigs  on  peanuts  alone.  This  Lot  made  verymuch  better  gains 
than  the  pigs  fed  exclusively  on  corn  meal,  which  \'vd  verypoorly. 
The  pigs  on  peanuts  alone  made  a  gain  of  9  pounds  per  bushel  of  pea- 
nuts. "This  gives  a  value  of  27  cents  to  a  bushel  of  Spanish  peanuts 
when  pork  is  worth  3  cents  per  pound  gross,  and  31-J  cents  when  pork 
is  worth  :;■.  cents  per  pound."  The  unthrifty  appearance  of  the 
fed  on  corn  meal  only  was  commented  upon 

At  the  South  Carolina  Station,  New  man  and  Pickett  '  \'vd  two  lots  of 
grade  Berkshire  and  Duroc  Jersey  pigs,  from  eight  to  eleven  months 
old,  in  pens,  to  study  the  relative  values  of  peanuts  and  corn.  On  land 
of  similar  character  they  estimated  the  corn  yield  at  L5  bushels  per  acre 
and  peanuts  '■',|  bushels,  and  in  their  investigations  they  found  that, 


r.ui.  N 


l  Bui.  No.  62, 


THE    HOG    LNDUSTBY. 


107 


with  exclusive  corn  feeding,  602  pounds  of  corn  were  required  for  LOO 
pounds  of  gain  and  with  peanuts  443  pounds  for  l<><»  pounds  of  gain. 
On  this  basis,  an  acre  of  corn  will  produce  L40  pounds  of  pork  and  an 
acre  of  peanuts  488  pounds,  worth,  respectively,  when  pork  is  5  cents 
per  pound,  $6.97  and  $24.37. 

COMMERCIAL  BY-PRODUCTS. 

One  of  the  prominent  features  of  modern  industry  is  the  develop- 
ment of  the  possibilities  of  the  by-product — the  waste  and  offal  of 
manufacturing  establishments.  Farmers  have  long  appreciated  the 
value  of  the  by-products  of  flour  mills,  but  of  recent  years  many 
other  materials  have  come  into  the  market  as  valuable  feed  for  farm 
animals.  Rice  mills,  oil  mills,  and  packing  houses  all  have  their 
by-products,  which  are  useful  in  supplementing  the  products  of  the 
farm. 

MILLING  PRODUCTS. 

The  by-products  of  the  flour  mills  have  for  years  been  bought  by 
farmers  for  use  in  the  feed  box,  and  one  of  these — middlings — has 
come  to  have  an  unsurpassed  reputation  for  hog  feeding,  especially 
for  young  animals  in  the  early  stages  of  fattening.  With  the  devel- 
opment of  milling  the  ingenuity  of  the  manufacturer  has  enabled  him 
to  throw  a  host  of  new  foods  upon  the  market.  In  consequence,  we 
have,  in  the  first  place,  a  by-product  more  completely  deprived  of  its 
nutrient  material,  perhaps,  than  formerly,  but  more  uniform  in 
quality;  and,  in  the  second  place,  a  greater  variety  of  feeds  with 
which  to  supph'  the  bins.  It  is  not  alone  the  products  of  the  flour 
mills  that  have  value  for  feeding  purposes.  The  rice  mills,  glucose 
factories,  and  oil  mills  all  have  by-products  that  are  useful  adjuncts 
to  feeding  operations.  Indeed,  most  of  the  experimental  work  of 
recent  years  deals  with  the  value  of  the  by-products  of  these  indus- 
tries. In  the  majority  of  instances  these  feeding  stuffs  are  best  used 
as  adjuncts  to  corn  or  corn  meal,  although  often  the  proximity  of 
feed  yards  to  a  mill  cheapens  the  by-products  sufficiently  to  enable 
the  feeder  to  use  them  as  the  main  part  of  the  ration. 

Bran  and  corn  meal  compared  with  corn  meal. — Burkett*  fed  two 
lots  of  3  pigs  each,  one  receiving  a  ration  of  equal  parts  of  bran  and 
corn  meal  and  milk  and  the  other  corn  meal  and  milk.  The  object 
was  to  compare  the  value  of  bran  in  such  a  ration  and  have  the  corn- 
fed  lot  as  a  check.     The  results  follow : 

Brail  and  corn  meal  compared  ivith  corn  meal  for  pigs. 


Ration. 

Num- 
ber of 
pigs. 

Average 
weight 
at  begin- 
ning. 

Total 
gain. 

Number    Average 
of  davs       daily 

Feed  per  100 
pounds  gain. 

fed.           gain. 

Grain. 

Milk. 

Bran  and  corn  meal  

3 

Pounds. 
47.6 
47 

Pounds. 
227 

Pounds.  1  Pounds. 
99            0.7fi 

Pounds. 

308 
263 

Pounds. 

882 

Corn  meal 

3 

3:23 

663 

a  Bui.  No.  66,  New  Hampshire  Expt.  Sta. 


L08 


i:i  BEAU    OF    ANIMAL    [NDU81  \:\ 


This  experiment  gave  much  better  returns  for  a  oorn-meal  and 
skim  miiu  ration  than  for  one  where  bran  was  added.  Bnrkett  <  l<  >«s 
not  \  a  I  in-  lii-an  highly  as  a  pig  feed  either  alone  or  in  combination  with 

coin  meal. 

Shoris  compared  with  corn. — At  the  Colorado  Station,  Bnffum  and 
Griffith0  r<-(l  purebred  Berkshire  pigs  about  5  months  <>1<|  to  com- 
pare the  feeding  value  of  corn  meal  and  shorts  in  combination  with 

wheal,  barley,  and  <>ais.  One  Lot  received  shorts,  wheat,  <>,iiv,  and 
barley  in  rotation  shorts  with  wheat  and  oate  one  day.  with  wheat 
and  barley  the  next,  with  oats  and  barley  the  next,  and  so  on.  The 
Lot  on  corn  had  the  same  method  of  feeding  and  the  same  ration, 
except  that  corn  was  fed  in  place  of  shorts.  Feed  was  charged  at  the 
following  prices:  Corn.  83  cents  per  LOO  pound-:  shorts,  75  cents  per 
LOO  pounds;  wheat,  '■>'>  cents  per  LOO  pounds;  oats.  $1.20  per  LOO 
barley,  $1.20  per  LOO  pounds.  The  experiment  Lasted  from  March  23 
to  May  31,  L90] — sixty-nine  days— the  results  being  as  follow-: 


Shorts  compared  with  corn  in  mixed  rations  forpigs. 


Num- 
berof 
pigs. 

Aver- 
age 
weight 
at  Be- 
gin- 
ning. 

Aver- 
galn. 

Num- 

amountfeed 

■  ii. 

Ration. 

ber  of 
davs 
fed. 

age 
daily 
gain. 

Corn. 

Shorts. 

Other 

per  100  per 100 

pounds  pounds 

gain.       gain. 

:; 

3 

U.S. 

112. 6 
96 

Lbs. 

69 

Lbs. 
1.31 

1 .  27 

Lbs. 

Lbs. 

Lbs. 
809.1 

581 

( 'urn  ;in(l  other  grain 

At  the  Indiana  Stat  ion  Plumb  and  Anderson  fed  two  Lots  of  3  high- 
grade  Chester  White  gilts,  each  five  and  one-half  mont  hs  old,  to  com- 
pare i  he  value  of  a  ration  of  corn  meal  and  wheat  shorts  with  a  ration 
of  corn  meal  only.  The  mixture  was  equal  parts  by  weight  of  corn 
meal  and  shorts.  The  pigs  were  fed  in  pens  with  small  shelter  houses 
attached.  Shorts  were  valued  at  $j  1  per  ton  ami  corn  meal  at  $13.50 
per  ton.      The  results  were  as  follows: 

Feeding  value  of  wheat  shorts. 


Elation. 

Num- 
ber of 

Average 
weight 

Total 
gain. 

Num- 
ber oi 

A\  ■■■!• 

age 

.       f.M-(l 

eaten. 

*sstr  isr 

ning. 

days     dally 
fed.       gain. 

Shorts. 

Corn 
meal. 

Shortsandcorn  meal 
( lorn  meal 

8 

}  'oil  II  lis. 

129 

Lbs. 

854 

TO 

Lbs. 
L.69 
1.66 

Lbs. 

I.hs. 

718 
1,418 

Pounds.    Dollars. 

The  mixture  of  corn  meal  and  shorts  gave  Larger,  more  rapid,  and 
more  economical  gains  than  a  ration  of  corn  meal  only.      In  the  Colo- 


B  d.  No,  :  i. 


Bui.  n...  n. 


THE    HOG    INDU8TBY. 


109 


rado  experiments  the  pigs  fed  on  a  ration  of  shorts  made  Larger  and 
more  rapid  gains  than  those  on  corn  meal,  but  they  required  more 
feed  per  LOO  pounds  gain. 

Com  meal  compared  with  rice  meal.  -The  South  Carolina  Station0 
compared  rice  meal  and  corn  meal.  "The  rice  meal  is  a  by-product 
of  the  rice  mills  and  consists  Largely  of  rice  flour,  rice  polish,  and  rice 
bran.  As  yd  the  mills  have  do  uniform  way  of  putting  it  on  the  mar- 
ket, and,  in  order  that  the  reader  may  understand  what  is  meant  by 
rice  meal,  as  used  in  this  experiment,  it  may  be  said  that  it  is  all  the 
by-prod  net  obtained  in  cleaning  the  rice  grain  for  the  market.  Its 
chemical  composition  shows  that  it  has  about  the  same  amount  of 
protein,  carbohydrates,  and  fat  as  corn  meal." 

The  pigs  used  were  Berkshires,  about  five  months  old,  weighing  about 
90  pounds  each.  They  were  given  a  ration  consisting  of  1  part  meal 
and  4  parts  skim  milk,  the  milk  being  mixed  with  the  meal,  and  were 
confined  in  pens  20  by  40  feet,  with  plenty  of  shade. 

The  experiment  was  divided  into  two  periods.  During  the  first 
period  of  thirty-nine  days  Lot  I  was  fed  the  corn-meal  ration  and  Lot  II 
the  rice-meal  ration;  during  the  second  period  of  twenty-two  days  the 
feed  was  reversed,  Lot  I  having  rice  meal  and  Lot  II  corn  meal. 

The  results  during  the  first  period  were  not  decisive,  but  during  the 
second  they  were  somewhat  favorable  to  the  rice  meal. 

The  results  for  each  kind  of  grain  for  the  entire  experiment  are  as 
follows : 

Rice  meal  compared  with  corn  meal  for  pigs. 


Ration. 

Num- 
ber of 

Total 
gain. 

Num- 
ber of 
days 
fed. 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain. 

Feed  eaten. 

Feed  per  100 
pounds  gain. 

Cost  of 

feed  per 

100 

pigs. 

Meal. 

Milk. 

Meal. 

Milk. 

pounds 
gain. 

Rice  meal  1   part,  skim 
milk  4  parts 

3 
3 

Lbs. 
314.5 
303 

61 
61 

Lbs. 

1.72 
1.66 

Lbs. 

779 
779 

Lbs. 
3,116 
3,116 

Lbs. 

248 
257 

Lbs. 

991 

1,028 

Dollars. 
3.84 

Corn  meal  1  part,  skim 
milk  4  parts 

4.63 

The  corn  meal  was  valued  at  820  per  ton,  rice  meal  at  $15  per  ton, 
and  skim  milk  at  20  cents  per  100  pounds.  This  experiment  shows 
that  rice  meal,  such  as  was  used  in  this  test,  is  fully  as  valuable  as 
corn  meal  in  pig  feeding  and  corroborates  previous  work  along  this 
line. 

Feeding  value  of  rice  polish. — Owing  to  the  high  price  of  corn  dur- 
ing 1902,  Duggar  b  devoted  considerable  attention  to  the  investigation 
of  the  value  of  those  feeds  whose  composition  seemed  to  indicate  that 


«Bul.  No.  55. 


&Bul.  No.  122,  Alabama  Expt.  Sta. 


no 


I'.i  1:1   \i     OF     \nim  \ 


NTDUSTB1  . 


thej  oould  be  used  as  substitutes  for  corn  meal  in  pig  feeding.  In 
this  connection  pice  polish  was  fed  to  a  number  of  pigs  under  different 
conditions.  Rice  polish  is  a  by-product  of  the  rice  mills  and  \a  <liili- 
cull  to  obtain  in  Borne  sections  of  the  country,  as  millers  often  mix  it 
with  Less  valuable  by-products  and  sell  the  mixture  under  the  name 
of  "  rice  meal.'1  For  this  reason  rice  meal  is  said  to  be  a  variable  and 
uncertain  quantity  and  all  samples  do  not  have  equal  feeding  value. 
In  L902  rice  polish  was  quoted  by  a  Savannah  mill  ai  117.90  per  ton, 
delivered  at  Auburn,  Ala.,  in  Less  i nan  carload  Lots.  Two  \  ears  before 
the  same  firm  ha<l  been  paid  126  per  ton  Tor  it  delivered  at  Auburn. 

It   is  stated  that  some  of  it   kept   in  g 1  condition  for  more  than 

a  \  ear. 
Duggar  reports  seven  tests  with  this  by-product.     Be  compared  it 

with  corn  meal  with  and  without  the  addition  of  skim  milk,  and 
in  a  mixed  ration  of  cow  pea  meal  and  wheat  bran;  with  a  ration  of 
one-half  cowpea  meal,  one-fourth  corn  meal,  and  one-fourth  rice  bran, 
with  the  addition  of  skim  milk;  and  in  different  proportions  with 
other  feeds  without  skim  milk.     The  pigs  used  were  generally  recently 

weaned  and  the  meal  was  led  dry. 

The  following  table  summarizes  the  results: 


/•'<  i  ding  valiu   of  rid  polish. 


Ration. 


Corn  meal  and  skim  milk 

tish  and  skim  milk 

Corn  meal 

IJSD 

Corn  meal 

sh 

( 'urn  meal  

Bice  polish 

Corn  meal  8,  cowpea  meal  :.'.  wheat 

bran  l 

Ush  :.'.  cowpea  meal  8,  wheat 

bran  1 

Oowpea meal :.'.  corn  meal  l.  r 

ish  1.  and  skim  milk 

B  ilish  and  skim  milk 

Oowpea  meal 8,  corn  meal  L,  rice  pol- 
ish]  

Corn  meal  l.  rice  polish  l 


Nam-    T(iT  , 

berof 

pigs. 


Lb». 

90 

109 


54 


m 


66 


]lt.r(it  Average 

days      ,1;ul>' 
ted.        B^un 


:> 


0.86 
1.04 


.64 

.40 


.79 


Feed  per  100  poum  I 


Bicepol-   other 
ish  lots.      1<  »ts. 


; 

ITO 


BIO 


810 


i-n  i 


Lbs. 
810 


SOU 


L78 


Lbs. 
465 
367 


418 
174 


In  every  instance  where  data  were  furnished,  the  pigs  on  rice  polish 
show  more  rapid  gains  than  those  on  corn  meal  or  mixed  grain  rations. 
In  only  two  eases  did  rice  polish  tail  to  prove  more  economical,  one 
of  these  was  the  second  test  with  corn  meal,  where  670  pounds  of  feed 
were  required  by  the  pigs  on  both  rations.     The  other  was  a  test  with 


THE    Hoc     [NDUSTRY. 


Ill 


a  mixed  ration,  where  2  parts  cowpea  meal,  l  pari  corn  meal,  and  1 
part  rice  polish,  with  skim  milk,  gave  gains  a1  an  outlay  <>f  L78 
pounds  grain  and  413  pounds  skim  milk,  as  compared  with  L93 
pounds  grain  and  474  pounds  skim  milk  by  the  ration  of  rice  polish 
and  skim  milk. 

Duggar  summarized  the  results  where  rice  polish  and  corn  meal 
were  compared  directly,  and  found  that  an  average  of  373  pounds  of 
tfce  polish  were  required  to  produce  LOO  pounds  gain,  as  compaied 
with  474  pounds  of  corn  meal.  "At  this  rate,  78.6  pounds  of  rice 
polish  were  equal  to  100  pounds  of  corn  meal,  a  saving  of  21.4  per 
cenl  of  the  grain  by  the  substitution  of  polish  for  corn  meal." 

Glut(  a  meal  compared  with  com  meal. — Pigs  that  had  been  fed 
without  success  on  a  potato  ration  at  the  Cornell  Station0  were  given 
a  "rational  ration"  of  corn  meal  and  skim  milk  for  a  week  and  then 
they  were  employed  in  a  test  to  compare  gluten  and  corn  meal.  Skim 
milk  was  fed,  the  proportion  to  meal  being  about  3  pounds  of  milk  to 
1  of  meal.  Lots  I  and  III  received  gluten  meal  and  milk,  and  Lots  II 
and  IV  corn  meal  and  milk. 

Gluten  meal  was  charged  at  $11.75  per  ton,  corn  meal  at  $14  per 
ton,  and  skim  milk  at  15  cents  per  100  pounds. 

The  following  were  the  principal  results: 

Gluten  meal  compared  with  corn  meal  for  pigs. 


Ration . 


Gluten  meal  and  milk. 
Corn  meal  and  milk  . . 
Gluten  meal  and  milk . 
Corn  meal  and  milk  . . 


or  at  begin- 


pigs. 


nmg. 


founds. 
87.25 
90.5 
47.5 
48.5 


Total 
gain. 


Pounds 
214 
297.5 
157.5 
219 


Num- 
ber of 
days 
fed. 


Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain. 


Pounds. 

1.07 

1.49 

.79 

1.10 


Dry 
matter 
per  100 
pounds 

gain. 


Pounds. 
319 
264 
252 
151 


Cost 
per  100 
pounds 

gain. 


Dollars. 
2.70 
2.50 
2.40 
1.90 


weight. 


Nutri- 
tive 
ratio. 


Percent. 
77.40 
80.20 


1:2.7 
1:5.8 
1:2.7 
1:5.8 


The  use  of  gluten  meal  in  combination  with  skim  milk  in  this 
experiment  did  not  give  results  so  satisfactory  as  where  corn  meal 
and  milk  were  fed.  Both  corn  meal  lots  made  better  gains  and  the 
average  of  dry  matter  consumed,  and  cost  per  100  pounds  gain  were 
much  lower  than  with  the  pigs  on  gluten  meal  and  milk. 

Hominy  meal  compared  with  corn  meal. — In  Massachusetts  the 
Hatch  Station6  compared  hominy  meal  and  corn  meal.  The  latter  is 
described  as  consisting  of  "the  hulls,  germs,  and  some  of  the  starch 
and  gluten  of  the  corn  ground  together.  This  separation  is  said  to  be 
brought  about  solely  by  the  aid  of  machinery.  The  hard  flint  part  of 
the  corn  is  the  hominy,  which  is  used  as  a  human  food." 

Seven  Chester  White  grades  were  fed  on  a  grain  and  skim-milk 
ration,  7  to  10  quarts  of  skim  milk  being  fed  daily  with  a  grain  allow- 

"Bul.  No.  199.  Cornell  Univ.  Expt.  Sta. 
6  Eleventh  An.  Rpt..  Hatch  Expt.  Sta. 


11 'J 


Bl  RE  \r    OF     \MM  \I.    [NDUS1  Bl  . 


ance  of  3  to  ,;  ounces  to  each  quart  of  milk,  depending  on  appetite 
and  size.  One  lot  reoeii  edoorn  meal  and  milk,  and  the  other  hominy 
meal  and  milk.     The  results  are  > 1 1 « » \\  n  in  the  follow  Ing  table: 

Hominy  meal  compared  with  <•"/•//  m>ni  forp 


( 'orn  meal 
Hominy  meal 


Nun.       \\.r 
,   "V,   weight  Total  ber  of       .  IM,,i; 


beroi 
(rigs. 


at  I..-     gain,    dayi 


ding 


no 


gain 


1.41H 


These  figures  show  hominy  meal,  as  !'<-<l  in  this  experiment,  i<>  have 
a  feeding  value  equal  i<>  that  of  corn  meaL     In  t  hi^  <»n«-  test  corn  • 
failed  to  give  quite  so  good  results  as  the  hominy  meal,  showing 
average  daily  gain  of  L.28  pounds  i<>  L.39  pounds  for  hominy  meal,  and 
320  pounds  dry  matter  tor  LOO  pounds  gain  t<>  306  pounds  dry  matter 
for  LOO  pounds  gain  in  tin*  case  of  tin-  hominy  meal. 

Corn  nit  nl  compared  with cerealim  feed. — Two  i<->'^  were  made  at 
the  Hatch  Station a  to  compare  corn  meal  and  cerealine  feed.  Like 
hominy  meal,  cerealine  feed  "consists  also  of  the  hull  and  a  portion 
of  the  starch  of  the  corn.  It  contains  rather  Less  of  the  starch  than 
the  hominy  meal.  It  is  the  by-product  resulting  from  the  preparation 
of  the  breakfast  food  known  as  cerealine  flakes.  It  iv  very  coarse 
Looking  and  appears  very  much  like  onground  coin  hulls." 

In  the  first  tesl  6  grade  Chester  White  pigs  about  five  weeks  old 
were  used.  They  were  fed  6  to  :i  quart*  of  skim  milk  per  head  daily, 
and  the  -rain  fed  at  the  start  was  :!  ounces  for  each  quart  of  milk; 
the  grain  was  increased  with  age  ami  weight.  The  nutritive  ration 
was  1 :  '■'>  at  the  beginning  and  1:7  at  the  eloe 

In  the  second  test  6  piu>.  "a  cross  between  the  Poland  China  and 
the  Chester  White,"  about  live  weeks  old.  were  fed.  skim  milk  was 
fed  in  connection  with  the  cerealine  feed,  which  was  "eaten  with 
seeming  relish  at  all  iime<.*"    The  following  iai>l<'  shows  the  results: 

Cerealim  feed  compared  with  corn  meal  for  pigs. 


Elation. 


Cerealine  f<H-<i 
Cent  meal 


Av.r- 
Num-' 
ber     freight    Total 

at  t>« 


cam. 


gin- 
ning. 


418 
15 

BIS 


Num- 
ber of 
days 


108 

108 

> 


\v.-r 

ten 

daily 

^:iin-     Grain.     Milk. 


L80 

1.84 


Lb*. 
781 

r.u 


Lot 

8,081 


th  An.  Bpt,  Hatch  Expt  Sta, 


Dry 

pounds  gain,    matter 

per  l<«i 

poundi 

[ilk.       gain. 


Lb*, 

1" 
\M 
816 


1,041 


80S 


THE    BOG     ENDU8TB5  . 


113 


In  these  tests  cerealine  feed  showed  considerable  valne  as  a  pig 
feed,  bin  failed  to  give  as  good  results,  either  in  rate  or  economy  of 
gain,  as  corn  meal.     Digestion  experiments  at  the  Batch  station  with 

sheep  have  shown  that  cerealine  feed  contains  as  much  digestible 
matter  as  corn  meal.  The  station  authorities  surest  that  the  coarse 
nature  of  cerealine  feed  lessens  its  value  as  a  pig  feed. 

Value  of  corn  hearts. — Duggarfl  fed  three  lots  of  3  pigs  each  to  com- 
pare corn  hearts  with  corn  meal  and  cowpea  meal.  These  feeds  con- 
stituted half  the  ration,  the  other  half  being  rice  bran.  The  follow- 
ing table  shows  the  results : 

Value  of  corn  hearts. 


Ration. 


Num- 
ber of 
pigs. 


Total 
gain. 


Corn  hearts  1 .\ 

Rice  bran  1 / 

Cowpea  meal  1 1 

Rice  bran  1 J 

Corn  meal  1 II 

Rice  bran  1 I 


Pounds. 
65 

81 


l^f   AFailT      Feed 
*£»        gain7    !    ^en. 


Pounds.    Pounds. 
0.62  !  480 


479 
540 


Feed  per 

100 

pounds 

gain. 


Pounds. 

738 


550 


Analyses  at  the  Alabama  Station  indicated  that  the  corn  hearts 
used  in  this  experiment  contained  8.9  per  cent  protein  and  the  rice 
bran  9  per  cent  protein. 

Gluten  meal  compared  with  linseed  meal  for  balancing  rations. — Pat- 
terson, at  the  Maryland  Experiment  Station,6  fed  four  lots  of  5  high- 
grade  Poland  China  pigs  each  to  compare  gluten  meal  and  linseed 
meal  as  the  nitrogenous  components  of  a  ration.  Lots  I  and  II  received 
hominy  chop  three-fifths,  linseed  meal  two- fifths;  Lots  III  and  IV 
received  hominy  chop  three-fifths,  King  gluten  meal  two-fifths.  Both 
lots  had  skim  milk  in  the  proportion  of  1  pound  of  milk  to  1  of  grain. 
The  results  were  as  follows : 


Gluten  meal  compared  with  linseed  meal  in  a  carbonaceous  ration 

Ration. 

Num- 
ber of 
pigs. 

Average                       Num- 
weight  at      Total      ber  of 

Average 
daily 
gain. 

Feed  per  100 
pounds  gain. 

Cost  per 

100 

pounds 

gain. 

ning. 

fed. 

Grain. 

Milk. 

Hominy  chop  f,  lin- 
seed meal  § 

Hominy  chop  %,  Un- 
seed meal  § 

5 
5 

Pounds. 

37 

36 

Pounds. 
298 

294 

60 

60 

Pounds. 
0.99 

.98 

Pounds. 
242 

242 

Pounds. 

242 

242 

Dollars. 
2.71 

2.70 

Average 

242 

242 

2.70 

Hominy  chop  f ,  glu- 
ten mealf... 

Hominy  chop  j,  glu- 
ten meal  § 

5 
5 

36 
37 

241 
256 

60 
60 

.80 
.85 

233 

220 

233              2.20 
220  :             2:07 

Average 

226              226               2.13 

«Bnl.  No.  122,  Alabama  Expt.  Sta. 
8396— No.  47—04 8 


&Bul.  No.  63. 


1  1  \  BUREAU    OF    AMMAI.    IN Di  3TB3  . 

Thia  table  shows  advantages  in  favor  of  gluten  meal.     Both  rate 
and  economy  of  gain   favor  the  corn  by-product.    The  oosl  of  the 
gluten-meal  ration  was  much  Leas  than  the  one  Into  which  Lint 
meal  entered. 

[TON-SEED    Mi.  \l.. 

No  t I  <>f  the  South  has  so  wide  a  range  of  Interesl  as  cotton- 
seed meal.  It  is  a  concentrated  feed  of  high  value  for  cattle  and 
sheep,  and  ii^  effect  on  the  fertilizing  value  <>f  the  manure  is  Dearly 
as  great  as  its  effect  <>n  the  feeding  value  of  tin-  ration. 

The  influence  of  cotton-seed  meal  extends  far  beyond  tin-  states 
where  it  i^  produced,  and  farmers  over  the  entire  country  have  come 
to  depend  upon  it  to  balance  their  rations  and  enrich  their  fields. 

Danger  of  ust  of  cottonseed  until  in  pig  feeding, — For  some  reason 
as  yet  unexplained  this  by-product  is  usually  fatal  to  pigs  in  from 
three  t<>  ten  weeks  after  feeding  has  commenced,  tin*  mortality  being 
at  least  .")i»  per  cent.  In  two  tests  conducted  by  the  Texas  Experi- 
ment Station     boiled  cotton  seed  gave  the  Least  serious  results,  while 

Soaked    raw  sm\.  roasted  seed,  and    raw  meal    proved    more   serious. 

In  one  test,  i()  of  the  lot  of  15  pigs  \'<'<\  cotton  seed  or  cotton-seed  meal 
died.  At  the  Iowa  Experiment  Station,0  of  6  pigs  that  were  on  a 
rat  ion  of  cotton-seed  meal,  corn-and-cob  meal,  and  buttermilk,  3  died. 
At  the  Kansas  Experiment  station,'  I  young  pigs  on  a  ration  com 
i  of  one-sixth  cotton-seed  meal  and  five-sixths  corn  meal  died 
within  forty-six  days  after  feeding  commenced.  At  the  Arkansas 
Station, d  three  lots  of  :!  pigs  each  were  fed  mixed  rations,  the  cotton- 
seed meal  constituting  one-third  of  the  grain.     All  died. 

The  time  intervening  between  the  beginning  of  feeding  cotton  Beed 
Or  cotton-seed  meal  and  the  first  appearance  of  trouble  varies  some- 
what. Curtis'  gives  six  to  eight  weeks;  Lloyd/  in  one  test,  lost  the 
first  pig  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  week:  in  another  test,  deaths  began 
after  forty  days;  CuEtiss*  losl  the  first  pig  fifty-one  days  after  feeding 
commenced.  Dinwiddie's*  first  pig  died  thirty-five  days  after  feed- 
ing commenced,  and  Duggar  lost  the  first  pig  thirty  days  after 
feeding  commenced.  It  therefore  appears  that  there  is  no  very  defi- 
nite period  of  time  that  is  required  for  the  poison  to  manifest  itself. 
However,  (  ottrell  slates  that  cotton-seed  meal  may  be  fed  for  three 
to  foni-  weeks  before  danger  is  imminent,  and  Bnrtis  and  Malum* ; 

stat.-  that   no  ease  has  come  under  1  heir  experience  "where  a  pig  has 

died  if  the  cotton-seed  meal  mixture  has  not   been  continued  Longer 
than  three  weeks." 

Bnl.  N<>.  81.  Bnl.  No.  88,  Eowa  Expt.  Sta. 

B       N  *BnL  No.  ;»'-.  Arkansas  Bxpfc  Sta. 

:     Nb.  58.  'Bui.  No.  122,  Alabama  Expt.  Sta. 

Bnl.  N  Bn]    N<  ,  95,  Kansas  Ex]     Sta. 

Bnl.  No.  31,  Texas  Expt.  sta.  An.  ftpt  L901  OS,  Oklahoma  Expt  Sta. 

•  I'.ul.  No.  60,  Mississippi  Expt. Sta, 


THE    BOG    INDUSTRY.  1  1  5 

Symptoms  of  poisoning.  -Poisoning  is  manifested  in  a  peculiar  man- 
ner. In  many  cases  pii;s  thai  are  apparently  well  in  the  evening  are 
found  dead  in  the  morning,  and  often  the  most  careful  watching  fails 
to  show  any  indications  of  indisposition.  Where  symptoms  are  pres- 
ent those  most  characteristic  seem  to  be  disorder  of  respiration,  which 
is  manifested  by  quickened  breathing,  coughing,  or  hiccough.  Fail- 
Log  appetite  usually  calls  the  attention  of  the  feeder  to  the  approach 
of  danger.  Seldom  more  than  two  days  intervene  between  the  first 
symptom  and  death.  Francis  a  gives  the  following  symptoms  of  the 
trouble  with  the  Texas  pigs : 

The  attack  was  sudden,  as  a  rale;  in  fact,  in  a  majority  of  cases  an  animal  was 
found  dead  that  had  been  apparently  well  twelve  hours  before.  In  those  cases 
which  we  were  fortunate  enough  to  witness  the  symptoms  were  those  of  a  sudden 
contraction  of  the  diaphragm,  producing  a  sound  similar  to  hiccough  in  man. 
The  animal  stood  with  head  near  the  ground,  the  flanks  tucked  up,  the  ears  hang- 
ing pendulous,  and  the  tail  straight  and  limp.  Some  would  lie  flat  on  the  belly — 
never  on  the  side — while  others  would  assume  a  sitting-up  posture  with  the  fore 
legs  well  apart.  In  several  cases  there  was  a  marked  elevation  of  temperature, 
the  thermometer  registering  106"  F.  per  rectum.  The  circulation  seemed  very 
weak  and  rapid.  *  *  *  As  a  rule  they  were  dead  in  an  hour.  *  *  *  The 
gaspings  became  more  and  more  frequent  and  violent,  and  after  a  few  straggles 
the  animal  was  dead.  In  the  last  moments  great  quantities  of  foam  or  froth  would 
come  from  the  nose  or  mouth. 

The  symptoms  observed  by  Dinwiddie  b  are  described  as  follows : 

The  disease  in  all  cases  was  of  a  type  which  might  be  described  as  acute.  In 
several  instances  the  animals  were  said  to  be  ' '  off  feed ' '  for  one  or  two  days 
before  other  symptoms  were  observed.  Every  animal  which  exhibited  any  symp- 
toms at  all  died  within  twenty-four  hours.  It  would  remain  by  itself,  standing, 
disinclined  to  move,  breathing  with  extreme  rapidity  and  jerking  or  '"thumping "' 
in 'the  flanks,  and  before  death  frothing  at  the  mouth  and  nostrils.  Fever  was 
absent  or  but  slight;  eyes  dull  and  sometimes  bloodshot.  Coughing  occasionally 
occurred. 

Pathological  features. — Francis  a  states:  "On  postmortem  examina- 
tion the  digestive  organs  appeared  normal  throughout.  The  other 
abdominal  organs  appeared  normal.  The  respiratory  organs  were 
full  of  foam.  The  lungs  themselves  were  bright  red  and  very  much 
congested  and  doughy."  Mayoc  pronounced  the  death  of  the  Kansas 
pigs  to  be  due  in  all  cases  to  "congestion  and  inflammation  of  the 
intestines,  lungs,  and  heart;"  but  Mlesrf  could  find  no  assignable 
cause  of  death  in  the  case  of  the  Iowa  pigs. 

Dinwiddie, b  in  the  Arkansas  experiments,  made  postmortem  exam- 
inations of  8  of  the  9  pigs  which  died,  and  found  a  very  constant  con- 
dition of  disorder.  He  says,  in  describing  the  first  examination,  the 
description  of  which  applied  to  all  cases : 

The  body  presented  no  external  changes.  Subcutaneous  tissue  showed  blood 
extravasations  in  streaks  and  points.     Blood  engorgement  of  lymph  nodes  of  neck 

"Bui.  No.  81,  Texas  Expt.  Sta.  ^Bul.  No.  53,  Kansas  Expt.  Sta. 

6  Bui.  No.  76,  Arkansas  Expt.  Sta.  (1  Bui.  No.  28,  Iowa  Expt.  Sta. 


1  I  6  Bl  BE  \i     OF     \MM\l.    imh  BTB1  . 

and  jaws.     Respiratory  and  bnocal  muoons  membrane  dusky  red.    Pleural  cavi- 

:it;iin  a  large  quantity  of  yellow,  oloody  fluid,  compressing  the  lunur- 
than  half  their  normal  bulk,    in  tin-  pericardia]  sac  there  is  a  similar  dropeica] 
effusion,  part  of  which  haa  formed  into  a  soft,  yellowish-white  cl  rident 

plenritis.     Lung  «lark  red,  c  ami  collapsed.    Cavities  of  heart  contain 

dark,  soft  i»l<»<xi  clots;  slight  petechial  extravasations  on  the  epicardinm.    No 
obvions  peritonea]  effusion.    Liver  is  dark  in  color,  friable,  and  deeply  blood- 
rged,  the  lobular  boundarieson  section  being  unusually  prominent,  with  <lark- 
red  depressed  centers.     Kidm  tion  appear  congested  throughout,  capsule 

nonadherent.    *    *    * 

Tli.-  stomach  ami  Intestines  often  Bhowed  abnormal  feataree.  The 
small  intestine  (jejunum)  frequently  Bhowed  hyperemia  patches  <>n 
both  the  serous  ami  mucous  surfaces,  ami  the  large  intestine  ami 
stomach  in  several  cases  contained  considerable  quantities  of  graveL 
The  urine  was  slightly  albuminous  in  two  cases.  In  <>m-  Instance, 
where  the  brain  was  dissected,  iln-re  was  engorgement  of  the  veins 
and  sinuses  of  the  dura  mater,  which  extended  "backward  into  the 
\  essels  of  the  neck." 

The  histological  examination  is  described  as  follow-: 

tdons  of  the  liver  tissue  reveal  an  intern  -tion  of  the  portal  By  stem,  the 

intralobular  capillaries  especially  being  enonuously  engorged  throughout  and  the 
livercells  compressed  and  shrunken.  There  is,  however,  no  marked  degeneration, 
and  tin-  nuclei  take  the  stain  in  the  normal  manner.  Sections  of  the  kidney 
exhibit  a  similar  capillary  engorgement,  though  less  intense.  The  glomerular 
tufts  art-  compressed  by  edematous  effusion  into  their  capsules.    A  degenerative 

—  in  the  cells  of  the  urinary  tubules  or  other  marked  pathologic  changes 
were  not  demonstrated.  In  the  spleen  no  distinct  pathologic  changes  are  found. 
Lung  sections  show  a  marked  congestion  of  the  capillary  vessels,  with  edematous 
effusion  and  occasional  hl<>  ><1  extravasations,  but  without  cellular  proliferation  or 
infiltration.     There  is  no  evidence  of  pneumonia  or  pleru 

7  atment.—As  a  rule,  hogs  suffering  from  the  effects  of  cotton- 
poisoning,  if  taken  from  the  cotton-?eed  ration  ami  placed  on 
rich  green  pasture,  become  apparently  well  in  a  week.0  A  similar 
result  follows  when  they  arc  simply  deprived  of  the  cotton 
meal  of  the  ration  ami  given  an  ordinary  grain  ration.  However, 
Burtis  *  reports  a  ease  where  a  pig  died  during  the  winter  after  a 
week's  feeding  on  a  straighl  corn  diet  that  followed  four  weeks"  feed- 
in  a  ration  of  one-fifth  cotton-seed  meal  ami  four-fifths  corn  meal: 
ami  Dinwiddie  and  Duggar  bad  similar  experiences,     [n  some 

may  pass  through  a  Beason  of  cotton-seed  meal  feeding  ami 
thereafter  be  indifferent  i«>  it.  Curtis c  found  thai  if  a  pig  lived 
thirty  days  after  the  first  appearance  of  trouble  it  could  be  regarded 
as  immune  from  the  effects  of  cotton  seed,  but  the  experience  of  others 
>cem^  to  contradict  this.     Dinwiddie d  gives  two  months  as  the  time 


80,  M  pi  Bxpt  Sta.;  An.  Rpts.,  1900-01  and  1901-03,  Oklahoma 

Brpt.  sta. 

.  ftpt  1901  03,  Oklahoma  Bxpt  Sta. 

.1.  X...  81,  T<  cae  Bxpt  Sta  ''Bui.  No,  :»">.  Arkansas  Bxpt  sta. 


1. 


the   hog    IXDISTKV.  117 

required  fora  hog  to  be  on  cotton-seed  meal  before  L1  ean  be  regarded 

as  immune. 

Tfu  causi  of  poisoning  nothnown. — The  poisonous  agent  of  cotton 
seed  has  not  yet  been  determined.  So  far  chemical  and  bacteriolog- 
ical examinations  have  revealed  nothing  to  which  can   be  attributed 

its  dangerous  character.  The  injurious  action  lias  been  variously 
attributed  to  the  lint  on  the  seed,  the  large  fat  content,  the  highly 
nitrogenous  composition,  the  sharpness  of  the  hulls,  the  presence  of 
a  toxin,  supposititious  chemical  or  bacteriological  changes  in  the  meal, 
formation  of  poisonous  crystals  by  metabolism,  etc.  Up  to  a  certain 
period  the  amount  of  cotton  seed  or  cotton-seed  meal  fed  does  not 
seem  to  have  any  influence  on  the  health  of  the  pigs,  but  the  evidence 
on  the  subject  is  so  meager  that  one  is  not  justified  in  drawing  con- 
clusions as  to  the  amount  of  meal  that  can  be  fed  safely.  Curtiss a 
inclines  to  the  toxin  theory;  he  found  the  amount  which  proved  fatal 
in  his  investigation  to  be  from  27  to  33  pounds  of  cotton-seed  meal. 
Dinwiddie  b  holds  that  the  belief  that  there  is  a  toxic  principle  in  the 
seeds  of  the  cotton  plant  is  the  most  reasonable  one,  and  one  that  has 
not  been  disproved.  The  action  seems  to  be  more  virulent  with  j^oung 
than  with  older  animals,  which  is  characteristic  of  poisons.  He  points 
out  that  the  amount  fed  to  pigs  is  much  larger  in  proportion  to  their 
body  weight  than  that  fed  to  cattle  and  suggests  this  as  a  reason  for 
the  supposed  greater  immunity  of  cattle.  With  a  1,000  pound  steer,  4 
pounds  of  cotton-seed  meal  is  an  amount  equal  to  0.4  per  cent  of  the 
body  weight.  In  the  case  of  the  pigs  in  the  Arkansas  experiments 
the  proportion  was  about  1.5  per  cent  of  the  bod}r  weight  at  the  begin- 
ning of  feeding.  The  amount  of  cotton-seed  meal  eaten  per  head  was 
23,  25,  and  15  pounds,  respectively,  in  the  three  experiments  at  that 
station.  Dinwiddie c  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  other  animals  are 
susceptible  to  cotton-seed  poisoning  and  states  that  guinea  pigs,  to 
which  he  fed  small  quantities  of  cotton-seed  meal  along  with  bran, 
died  in  from  two  to  three  weeks.  He  also  admits  the  possibility  of 
ptomaine  poisoning. 

At  the  Alabama  station  two  of  DuggarV  experiments  resulted 
fatally.  In  the  first  experiment  the  smaller  pigs  were  the  first  to  die. 
They  averaged  about  61  pounds,  and  12.20  pounds  of  cotton-seed 
meal  were  eaten  by  each  before  death  ensued.  This  was  0.25  pound 
daily  per  head,  or  0.1  pound  daily  per  100  pounds  live  weight  for 
forty  days,  and  a  total  of  18.90  pounds  per  100  pounds  average  live 
weight.  Larger  pigs  in  this  experiment,  averaging  a  little  over  70 
pounds,  died  when  16.60  pounds  of  cotton-seed  meal  had  been  fed  per 
head.     These  pigs  were  fed  0.41  pound  per  head  daily,  or  0.53  pound 

«  Bui.  No.  28,  Iowa  Expt.  Sta.  &  Bui.  No.  122,  Alabama  Expt.  Sta. 

cBul.  No.  76,  Arkansas  Expt,  Sta. 


1  IS  BUREAU    OF    animal    l NM  9TBY, 

per  LOO  pounds  live  weight  daily,  for  forty-three  days;  the  total 
amount  of  cotton-seed  meal  fed  was  21.60  per  <-«-ni  <»t*  the  average  live 
weight.  In  the  second  fatal  experiment  one  of  the  pi.Lrs  died  "after 
having  appeared  gaunt  and  weak  for  two  days."  This  pig  averaged 
about  60  pounds  in  weight  and  up  to  the  time  of  death  ha<l  been  fed 
5,  i  pounds  of  ootton-seed  meal.  This  was  a  total  of  9.2  pounds  per  ion 
pounds  live  weight.  The  pig  had  not  had  more  tliah  0.25  pound  cotton- 
seed meal  dailj  per  LOOpounds  live  weight.  The  other  pig  in  tin-  same 
l(»i  showed  an  unthrifty  condition  and  the  ration  u;h  changed. 
i he  Kansas  experience  on  page  1 22,  where  a  similarly  small  amount  of 
ootton-seed  meal  produced  fatal  results.)  The  ration  in  both  experi- 
ments \\a>.  cotton-seed  meal  one-fifth,  corn  meal  four-fifths. 
In  another  test  wit  h  a  ration  of  corn  meal  three-fouii  as,  cotton-seed 

meal  one-fourth,  the  pigs  were  noticed  to   be  out   of  condition  toward 

the  thirty-fifth  day,  bui  uo  deaths  occurred.     They  averaged  about  L18 
pounds  in  weight,  and  the  amount  of  ootton-seed  meal  which  made 

t  hem  sick  was  25.5  pounds.     This  was  21.4  pounds  per  LOO  pounds  live 
weight,  or  0.61  pound  daily  per  LOO  pounds  live  weight. 

The  causes  of  death  are  regarded  by  Dinwiddie0  a>>  being  both 
essentia]  and  contributory,  the  essential  cause  being  the  toxic  princi- 
ple supposed  to  be  present.  He  describes  the  immediate  cause  of 
death  as  follows: 

In  all  our  cases  the  immediate  cause  of  death  was  obviously  asphyxia,  doe  to 
pressure  on  the  longs  by  the  dropsical  effusion  into  the  pleural  cavities.  In  its 
final  manifestations  the  disease  was  an  acute  dropsy  of  the  pleural  and  pericar- 
dia] Baca  The  congestion  of  the  abdominal  organs,  and  especially  of  the  portal 
system,  can  be  attributed  to  obstructed  circulation  through  the  collapsed  lungs 

damming  the  blood  back  in  the  venous  system,  and  hence  a  pi  "lidary  to 

the  pleuritic  effusion.  That  this  portal  engorgement  was  secondary  to  the  pleural 
effusion.  I  infer  from  the  absence  of  degenerative  or  other  changes  in  the  liver 
Which  could  account  for  it  and  hum  absence  of  any  marked  peritoneal  effusion. 
Ascites  would  be  the  firjtf  result  of  such  extreme  portal  congestion  if  it  were  pri- 
mary. All  of  these  conditions,  however,  are  necessarily  the  result  of  Borne  fun- 
damental cause,  the  nature  of  which  is  yet  to  be  discovered.  An  acute  hydro- 
thorax  and  hydrops  pericardii,  unaccompanied  by  ascites  and  without  any 
antecedent  pleuritis.  is  a  condition  rarely  met  with  in  human  pathology.  Non- 
inflammatory dropsical  effusion  maybe  due  to  mechanical  obstruction,  cardiac 
disease,  degenerative  changes  in  the  kidney  or  liver,  or  to  physical  or  chemical 
changes  in  the  blood  itself.  Neither  of  the  first  three  can-.-;  appears  to  be  in 
operation  here.  Further  researches  will  probably  show  some  grave  alteration  in 
the  composition  of  the  blood  as  the  primary  effect  of  acute  cotton-seed  meal  poi- 
soning. In  hogs,  at  least,  nervous  derangements  are  not  manifested,  so  fai 
have  seen. 

Points  thai  may  in  time  lead  to  the  discovery  of  the  trouble  are 
that  old  meal  seems  to  be  more  fatal  than  fresh,  that  COttOU-seed  meal 
is  more  fatal  than  COttOU  seed  in  any  condition,  and  that  the  poison- 
ous agent  is  not  in  the  oil.  but  seems  to  be  entirely  left  in  the  cake 


a  lml.  \.  .  r6,   Arkansas  Bxpt  Sta, 


/ 


THE    BOG    CNDU8TRY.  11(.> 

when  the  oil  is  expressed.  It  is  also  well  known  t  hroughoul  I  lie  Soul  li 
that  decomposed  cotton  Beed  lias  little,  if  any,  dangerous  character, 
and  it  has  been  pretty  clearly  established  by  the  studies  of  Curtiss0 

and  by  the  experience  of  practical  feeders  that  the  meal  La  BO  changed 
by  tin1  processes  of  digestion  that  hogs  following  steers  which  arc 
being  fed  a  heavy  cotton-seed  meal  ration  are  not,  injured  by  the 
droppings. 

Feed'uuj  value. — Disregarding,  for  the  moment,  the  fatal  effects  of 
this  product,  let  us  consider  its  feeding  value.  The  results  from 
feeding  either  the  whole  grain  or  the  meal  have  not  been  uniform, 
and  have  given  rise  to  three  opinions  regarding  its  value  as  a  pig 
feed — (1)  that  it  is  both  worthless  and  dangerous;  (2)  that  it  is  only 
fairly  valuable  and  hardty  worth  the  risk  of  feeding,  and  (3)  that  it 
is  extremely  valuable  if  means  can  be  devised  to  feed  it  without  fatal 
results. 

The  Kentucky  Experiment  Station  b  fed  a  ration  of  1  part  cotton- 
seed meal,  1  part  wheat  bran,  and  2  parts  corn-and-cob  meal  for 
twenty-eight  days,  when  ship  stun0  replaced  the  cotton-seed  meal, 
because  the  pigs  refused  it,  whether  fed  wet  or  dry.  No  fatalities 
were  reported,  but  the  gains  were  unsatisfactory  and  the  station  came 
to  the  conclusion  that,  in  Kentucky,  "cotton-seed  meal  could  not  be 
fed  profitably  to  hogs,  whether  for  growth  or  fat." 

Curtis c  expresses  himself  in  a  similar  tone,  that,  "After  two  years 
successive  tests  in  feeding  cotton  seed  and  cotton-seed  meal  to  hogs 
with  a  definite  aim  in  view,  and  after  practical  attempts  to  use  these 
products  in  a  similar  manner  for  the  past  ten  years,  we  do  not  hesi- 
tate to  express  our  candid  opinion  that  there  is  no  profit  whatever  in 
feeding  cotton  seed  in  any  form  or  cotton-seed  meal  to  hogs  of  any 
age .  *  *  *  that  it  is  practically  impossible  to  prepare  cotton  seed 
or  cotton-seed  meal  in  any  manner  so  that  hogs  will  eat  it  greedily." 

Lloyd's d  opinion,  from  his  experience  at  the  Mississippi  Station,  is 
somewhat  similar.  He  had  losses  from  raw  cotton-seed  meal,  but 
none  from  those  getting  cooked  seed,  although  these  pigs  became 
very  sick  and  refused  to  eat.  His  gains  were  "neither  satisfactory 
nor  profitable."  With  one  bunch  of  pigs  the  average  daily  gain  was 
about  1  pound  for  the  first  two  weeks,  after  which  the  gains  were 
small,  although  the  pigs  did  not  lose  their  appetite  and  continued  to 
eat  with  relish.  The  after  effects  of  feeding  in  this  case  were  detri- 
mental, as  the  pigs  never  got  into  good  condition. 

At  the  North  Carolina  Station,  Emery6  fed  an  88-pound  pig  for 
sixty-one  consecutive  days  on  a  cotton-seed  meal  ration,  the  amount 
of  cotton-seed  meal  varying  from  one-fourth  pound  daily  at  the 
beginning  to  2  pounds  daily  at  the  close.     Skim  milk  was  fed  during 

a  Bui.  No.  28,  Iowa  Expt.  Sta.  <*  Bui.  No.  60. 

8  Bui.  No.  19.  e  Bui.  No.  109. 

cBul.  No.  21,  Texas  Expt.  Sta. 


1  20  Mi;  i.  \r    OF    \  mm  \  I.    in  in'-  i  RV5  . 

the  first  three  weeks  and  preen  feed  daring  i  h<*  first  Bii  weeks.  Two 
pounds  «>!'  cotton-seed  meal  daily  made  the  pig  sick,  and  for  twenty- 
two  days  the  meal  was  dropped  from  the  ration.  Then  the  feed  was 
made  one-fourth  cotton-seed  meal,  three-fourths  wheat  bran,  with  12 
pounds  Bkim  milk  dailj  for  ten  days,  after  \\  1 1 i « - 1 1  corn  meal  was 
substituted  for  the  cotton-seed  meaL  The  feeding  was  unprofitable, 
hut  i  be  pig  did  not  die. 

Amongthe  instances  where  feeding  was  fairly  profitable,  the  results 
at  tin-  N<-w  Fork  (State)  Station0  ma\  Denoted.  The  intention  was 
uoi  bo  uote  the  effects  of  cotton-seed  meal  feeding.  Cotton-seed  meal 
in  amounts  varying  from  one-thirteenth  to  three-tenths  of  the  entire 
ration  was  fed,  with  good  results,  covering  periods  of  from  fifty-six  to 
one  hundred  and  thirty-nine  days.  Two  pigs  in  a  lot  fed  on  wet  feed 
were  troubled  with  Indigestion,  and  after  the  close  of  the  trial  one  <>f 
them  died  from  "  congestion  oi  the  Liver,  following  indigestion."  This 
may  have  been  cotton-seed  meal  poisoning.  The  pigs  were  on  a  ration 
in  which  there  was  I  hree-tenths  pound  daily  for  sixty-t  hree  daj  s. 

Cary's*  results  in  Alabama  are  remarkable  because  of  the  Large 
quantities  of  cottonseed  fed.  He  conducted  three  experiments  in 
which  cotton  seed  or  cotton-seed  meal  were  fed  to  L3  pigs.  Prom  1.1 
pounds  of  crushed  cotton  seed  were  w^i  per  head  daily.  In  two 
instances  cotton-seed  meal  was  fed,  bul  in  small  amounts  (three- 
tenths  pound  daily  in  one  case  and  three-lift  lis  pon  ml  in  the  other).  The 
receiving  cotton-seed  meal  did  not  thrive.  Losing  appetite;  one 
of  them  received  bran,  the  other  corn  meal  in  addition  to  the  cotton- 
seed meal,  and  both  had  green  feed.  When  they  were  taken  from 
cotton-seed  meal  and  placed  on  corn  and  pasture  they  recovered 
rapidly. 

In  the  first  tesl    the  pigS OD    crushed   cotton   seed    made    fairly  g i 

gains.  They  had  some  grain  in  addition,  and  all  received  green  or 
succulent  \\'i'i\.  In  the  second  test  :;  pigs  were  \'^^\  rations  oi  corn 
meal  and  crushed  cotton  seed  or  ground  cowpeas  and  crushed  cotton 
seed.  The  rations  were  heavy — 6  pounds  when  corn  meal  was  fed 
and  &j  pounds  when  cowpeas  were  fed;  the  amount  of  cotton 

was  more  than  half  the  ration.  Pair  gains  were  made  and  the  after 
effect  does  not  seem  to  have  been  SeriOUS,  as  the  pigs  did  well  when 
placed  on  pasture  and  U'i\  corn.  One  pig  in  this  lot  had  crushed  COt- 
!uii  seed  alone,  being  fod  -4.1  pounds  daily.  He  Lost  in  weight,  but 
gained  in  size  of  frame.  When  turned  on  pasture  and  given  corn  lie 
did  well.  Another  pig  that  had  -)\  pounds  crushed  cotton  seed  and 
:;'  pounds  green  rye  daily  lost  28  pounds  in  twenty-eight  days.  After 
the  rye  was  discontinued  the  pig  failed  to  thrive,  hut  recuperated 
rapidly  on  past  lire  with  corn. 

In    three   Oases    where    •">    pounds    Of    Crushed    cotton    seed    were    \\'<\ 

daily,  with  ground  cowpeas  and  green  ryeorcorn  meal  and  green  rye, 


Eleventh  and  Twelfth  An.  Rpts.  .  Alabama  Expt  Sta. 


THK    BOG    LNDUSTBY.  121 

nominal  gains  were  made.     N*o  disastrous  effects  followed  when  green 
feed  was  discontinued;   subsequent    treatment  on   pasture  and  corn 
gave  good  gains. 
In  a  third  test  2  pigs  were  fed  for  forty-nine  days  on  a  daily  ration 

of  G  pounds  of  separator  milk  and  :>\  pounds  crushed  cotton  seed, 
then  for  fifty  days  on  6  pounds  of  whole  milk  and  34  pounds  crushed 
cotton  seed.  Their  appetites  failed  twice,  but  they  gained  slightly  in 
weight. 

The  length  of  time  that  cotton  seed  or  cotton-seed  meal  was  fed  in 
these  experiments  was  one  hundred  and  five  days  in  the  first,  ninety- 
one  days  in  the  second,  and  one  hundred  and  nine  days  in  the  third. 
Although  the  pigs  were  occasionally  off  feed  there  were  no  fatalities. 

Duggar'sa  experiments  did  not  show  very  favorable  results  for 
cotton-seed  meal  as  part  of  the  pig's  ration.  In  no  case  did  the  pigs 
so  fed  make  so  great  an  average  daily  gain  as  1  pound,  and  the  gains 
were  usually  expensive,  whether  the  grain  was  fed  alone  or  with 
green  feed.  Rations  of  corn  meal  only  gave  better  results.  One  lot 
of  2  pigs,  averaging  68  pounds,  fed  a  ration  of  cotton-seed  meal  one- 
fifth,  corn  meal  four-fifths,  and  grazed  on  sorghum,  made  an  average 
daily  gain  of  0.53  pound  for  thirty-four  days,  at  an  outlay  of  380 
pounds  of  grain  for  100  pounds  gain.  Another,  averaging  68  pounds, 
on  the  same  grain  ration,  but  grazing  peanuts,  made  an  average  daily 
gain  for  thirty-eight  days  of  0.94  pound,  requiring  185  pounds  grain  for 
100  pounds  gain.  Another  lot  made  an  average  daily  gain  of  0. 8  pound 
for  twenty-eight  days  on  a  ration  of  cotton-seed  meal  one-fourth  and 
corn  meal  three-fourths,  requiring  384  pounds  grain  for  100  pounds 
gain,  while  a  lot  on  corn  meal  only  in  the  same  test  made  an  average 
daily  gain  of  1.1  pounds,  but  required  531  pounds  grain  for  100  pounds 
gain.  Duggar  found  corn  meal  alone  a  more  palatable  ration  than 
one  to  which  cotton-seed  meal  had  been  added,  and  had  difficulty  in 
inducing  pigs  to  eat  a  full  allowance  of  a  cotton-seed  meal  ration. 

The  Kentucky,  Wisconsin,  Iowa,  Kansas,  and  Oklahoma  experi- 
ment stations  have  published  results  that  show  cotton-seed  meal  to 
have  considerable  feeding  value  for  pigs. 

In  Kentucky  May  b  fed  cotton-seed  meal  at  intervals  of  one  week  as 
part  of  the  ration  to  20  grade  Berkshire  pigs  during  a  three  weeks' 
finishing  period  with  very  good  results. 

At  the  Wisconsin  Station/  Henry  fed  two  lots  of  5  pigs  each  for 
thirty-five  days  on  a  ration  of  which  one-half  pound  daily  was  cotton- 
seed meal.  The  feeding  was  alternated,  one  lot  receiving  oil  meal 
while  the  other  had  cotton-seed  meal.  The  rest  of  the  grain  ration 
was  a  mixture  of  equal  parts  of  wheat  shorts  and  corn  meal.  Skim 
milk  and  whey  were  fed,  and  the  feeding  was  done  in  the  fall  and 

«Bul.  No.  122,  Alabama  Expt.  Sta.  c  Eleventh  An.  Rpt. 

b  Bui.  No.  101,  Kentucky  Expt.  Sta. 


122  BUREAU    OF    ANIMAL    QCDUBTRY. 

winter.  The  pigs  were  never  sick  nor  off  feed,  and  made  their  gains 
economically.  The  tabulation  of  results  shows  thai  while  on  cotton- 
seed meal  the  pigs  required  5  per  cent  Less  feed  than  while  on  oil 
meal. 

At  the  I<>\\;i  Experiment  Station,  Curtiss*  fed  two  lots  of  3  Poland 
china  pigs  each  on  a  ration  of  corn-and-cob  meal,  cotton-seed  meal, 
and  buttermilk.  One  lot  received  one-half  pound  cotton-seed  meal  per 
head  daily  and  the  other  l  pound  per  head  daily.  The  grain  fed 
was  soaked  for  twelve  hours  before  feeding.  Salt  and  ashes  were 
also  given.  Everything  went  well  until  tin-  sixth  week,  when  the 
droppings  of  the  pigs  on  the  heavj  ration  became  dark  in  color  and 
somewhat  hard.  However,  the  appetite  was  not  affected.  The  first 
pig  died  fifty-one  days  after  feeding  commenced,  and  a  second  went 
the  day  following.  Thej  had  been  on  the  heavy  ration,  but  showed 
no  signs  of  sickness,  and  their  gains  had  been  steady.  Sixty-three 
days  after  the  start  a  pig  in  the  lot  receiving  one-half  pound  of  cot- 
tonseed meal  per  head  daily  died,  l>m  not  without  symptoms  of 
trouble.  For  a  day  or  two  before  death  he  had  shown  a  u failing 
appetite  and  quickened  breathing.'3  The  rest  of  the  pigs  in  tins  lot 
showed  the  same  symptoms,  but  survived,  although  their  gains  were 
Light.  The  station  veterinarian  could  find  no  assignable  cause  of 
death. 

In  this  experiment  the  fatal  quality  of  cotton-seed  meal  seemed  to 
depend,  to  a  certain  extent,  on  tin-  quantity  fed.  The  first  pigs  to 
die  were  those  in  the  lots  receiving  the  heavier  ration  of  cotton-seed 
meal.     These  pigs  also  made  tin-  better  gains. 

'Idic  Kansas  Station b  fed  4  small  pigs  a  ration  of  one-sixth  cotton- 
seed meal  and  five-sixths  corn  meal.  The  meal  was  stirred  in  water 
at  feeding  time.  It  was  not  relished  at  first,  but  when  it  was  once  eaten 
rapid  gains  were  made.  The  first  pig  died  twenty-three  days  after 
the  feeding  began,  and  "could  not  have  eaten  more  than  5  pounds  of 
cotton-seed  meal  altogether,"  a  fact  which  st-em^  t<>  Lessen  the  weight 
of  the  theory  that  the  quantity  eaten  has  an  influence  on  the  fatal 
property  of  the  feed.  This  pig  weighed  about  L8  pounds  at  the  time 
of  its  death.  The  last  pig  died  on  the  forty-sixth  day  of  the  experi- 
ment.    (See  Duggar's  experiments,  pp.  117,  118.) 

Two  sows  weighing,  respectively,  L35  and  308  pounds  were  pot  on  a 
ration  of  one-fourth  cotton-seed  meal  and  three-fourths  corn  meal  for 
forty-five  days;  they  gained  89  pounds  each  without  signs  of  poisoning. 

In  a  second  test,  6  pigs  that  bad  been  stunted  by  exclusive  corn 
meal  or  ground  wheat   feeding  were  divided  into  two  Lots  of  3  each 

and  put  on  rations  composed  Of  One-fourth  COtton-seed  meal  and  three- 
fourths  corn  meal  for  one  lot,  and  equal    parts  of  these  meals  for   the 

other  lot.     The  change  of  condition  is  described  as  " magical "  and 
Bui  N  &Bol.No.58. 


THE    EOG     IND1STUV.  L23 

immediate;  the  pigs  began  to  gain  Inweighl  at  once,  and  those  receiv- 
ing the  greater  amount  of  cotton-seed  meal  made  the  Larger  gains. 
No  other  feed  was  given.  The  first  pig  died  on  the  forty-fifth  day  of 
the  experiment,  the  second  on  the  forty-eighth  day,  the  third  on  the 
fifty-third  day,  and  the  fourth  on  the  fifty-sixth  day  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  cotton-seed  meal  feeding.  Two  pigs  were  left  in  each  lot; 
they  were  placed  on  green  oats  and  then  thrived  nicely. 

A  later  bullet  in"  from  the  Kansas  Station  mentions  a  lot  of  pigs 
that  had  done  poorly  in  another  experiment;  1  hey  were  fed  cotton- 
seed meal,  and  were  "ready  for  market,  well  finished,  in  twenty-two 
days."  At  the  Kansas  Station  cotton-seed  meal  is  very  highly  regarded 
to  put  pigs  in  high  condition,  if  fed  for  a  short  time  in  small  quanti- 
ties. The  beginning  ration  is  one-fourth  pound  cotton-seed  meal  to 
each  1,000  pounds  live  weight  per  day,  which  is  increased  in  ten  days 
to  make  the  amount  3  pounds  per  1,000  pounds  live  weight.6  The 
meal  is  mixed  with  the  rest  of  the  grain. 

The  Kansas  and  IowTa  results  show  that  a  cotton-seed  meal  ration  is 
valuable  if  the  cotton-seed  meal  is  used  in  a  moderate  amount  and 
for  a  limited  time.  The  proportions  of  cotton-seed  meal  used  in  the 
Iowa  test  were  about  one-eighteenth  and  one-ninth  of  the  total  grain 
rations  at  the  start  and  about  one-tenth  and  one-fifth  at  the  close.  Up 
to  the  time  the  pigs  began  to  die  the  gains  of  those  on  the  heavier 
cotton-seed  meal  ration  were  the  larger  and  more  economical  (1.4 
pounds  average  daily  gain  and  343  pounds  meal  and  250  pounds  milk 
per  100  pounds  gain).  The  lighter  ration  was  about  equal  in  results 
to  one  of  corn-and-cob  meal,  gluten  meal,  and  buttermilk,  that  stood 
second  to  the  heavy  cotton-seed  meal  ration.  The  two  lots  returned 
in  pounds  of  gain  per  100  pounds  of  dry  matter  in  the  feed  (before 
deaths  began)  31.1  pounds  and  26.4  pounds,  respectively,  for  the  pigs 
on  the  heavy  and  the  light  rations.  In  the  Kansas  tests  the  gains 
before  deaths  commenced  were  also  very  economical;  they  varied  in 
cost  from  considerably  less  than  300  pounds  grain  per  100  pounds 
gain  in  the  case  of  the  pigs  that  had  been  previously  on  the  single- 
grain  rations  to  350  pounds  grain  per  100  pounds  gain  in  the  case  of 
the  sows. 

Pigs  following  steers  on  cotton-seed  meal. — Evidence  of  the  danger- 
ous properties  of  cotton-seed  meal  for  pigs,  when  they  are  following 
steers  whose  ration  is  made  up  wholly  or  in  part  of  cotton-seed  meal, 
is  conflicting.  In  the  Iowa  testc  a  lot  of  3  pigs  followed  steers  for 
seventeen  weeks  that  were  receiving  from  4  to  7  pounds  of  cotton- 
seed meal  daily.  They  had  very  little  feed  except  what  they  picked 
up  behind  the  steers,  yet  there  were  no  noticeable  injurious  effects. 

« Bui.  No.  95. 

&This  is  about  the  ration  furnished  dairy  cowts  in  milk. 

^Bul.  No.  28,  Iowa  Expt.Sta. 


1  24  BUBEAtJ    OF    a  mm  \  l.    in  in  BTRY. 

The  Kansas  Station  'states  thai  the  meal  used  in  their  earl}  experi- 
ments was  shipped  in  from  Texas  during  the  previous  winter  by  a 
Local  feeder,  t<>  i><-  r<-<i  to  Bteers.  1 Ee  turned  about  W  hogs  after  them, 
and  all  died  In  the  course  of  sii  or  seven  weeks.  Considerable  evi- 
dence that  pigs  ma)  not  Buffer  after  steers  thai  are  fed  on  cotton-seed 
meal  has  recently  been  presented  in  the  columns  of  the  agricultural 

{tie  —  . 

i  in    i  >KL  vim  m  \    i  xri.KiMi.N  i-. 

The  Oklahoma  Station  has  made  an  extensive  study  of  the  possi- 
bility of  feeding  I  his  by-product  bo  I  hal  good  pel  urns  may  be  obtained 
with  Little  <>r  do  danger  from  poisoning.  The  conditions  under  which 
ii  has  been  found  thai  cotton-seed  meal  maj  generally  1m*  fed  safely 
are  (l)  where  pigs  have  access  to  range  and  plenty  of  green  pasture, 
and  (2)  where  periods  of  cotton-seed  meal  feeding  of  three  to  four 
weeks'  duration  without  pasture  are  alternated  with  a  period  on  pas- 
tureoron  a  ration  from  which  the  cotton-seed  meal  has  been  omitted. 

Following  up  this  system  the  Oklahoma  station  has  conducted 
three  experiments.  In  the  first  trial,  in  L900,  the  alternating  method 
was  tried  with  17  thrifty  shoats  of  various  sizes.0  They  were  put  on  a 
ration  composed  of  one-fifth  cotton-seed  meal  and  four-fifths  Kafir- 
corn  meal  and  had  the  run  of  a  la  rge  paddock,  where  they  got  a  little 
greenstuff.  The  trial  began  March.  22.  For  twenty-seven  days  the 
cotton-seed  meal  ration  was  \'<'i\\  then  for  fourteen  days  Kafir-corn 
meal  alone,  next  fourteen  days  on  one-fifth  cotton-seed  meal,  and 
four-fifths  Kafir-corn  meal,  then  seven  days  without  the  cotton 
meal,  closing  with  five  days  on  the  original  rat  ion.  "None  of  the  pigs 
had,  died,  and  all  made  very  fair  gains  on  a  moderate  amount  of  grain. n 

At  the  (dose  of  i his  trial  part  of  the  pigs  were  sold  and  the  rest  con- 
tinued on  the  cotton-seed  meal  rat  ion,  with  which  the  trial  closed  (one- 
fifth  cotton-seed  meal  and  four-fifths  Kafir-corn  meal).  They  were  fed 
on  this  ration  without  change  until  July  14  with  the  loss  of  l  pig  only. 
In  the  second  trial  of  the  same  year  L6  stunted  shoats,  about  a  year 
old  and  averaging  79  pounds  were  used.  For  twenty-six  days  from 
April  L2,  they  were  hurdled  on  wheat  and  d'd  a  light  ration  of  one- 
fifth  cotton-seed  meal  ami  four-fifths  Kafir-corn  meal.  There  wasno 
ill  effect  from  the -rain  ration.     The  gains  averaged  0.96  pound  per 

head   daily  and   were  made  economically.      <>n    May  8   the   pigs  were 

taken    from    the  wheat    and    fed    the   same   -rain   ration    in   a    lot    for 

twenty-one  days  with  no  serious  results  making  an  average  daily 
gain  of  1.71  pounds  ai  the  expense  of  307  pounds  of  grain  lor  loo 
pounds  gain.  Five  of  the  Largest  were  sold  after  forty-»  ven  days 
continuous  feeding  on  a  cotton-seed  meal  ration. 

«Bul.  X...  58.  An.  Kpt..  L900-01. 


THE    H<  HI    INDUSTRY.  125 

The  ll  pigs  remaining  were  then  given  range  and  green  f<'<i<l  and 
the  same  grain  ration  continued.  The  gains  made  were  satisfactory. 
There  were  no  losses,  and  they  were  sold  on  .Inly  14,  after  ninety-three 
days'  continuous  feeding  on  a  cotton-seed  meal  rat  ion. 

In  1001,  16  uniform  Poland  Chiua  sheats,  farrowed  late  in  the  pre- 
vious fall,  were  used."  The}7  were  about  11  weeks  old  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  experiment  and  averaged  about  47  pounds  in  weight. 
The  experiment  began  January  11.  The  pigs  were  divided  into  four 
lots  of  4  each.  Each  lot  was  given  an  open  pen  9  by  24  feet,  and  had 
a  space  8  by  8  feet  in  an  inclosed  piggery.  Cob  charcoal,  wood  ashes, 
and  salt  were  always  accessible;  water  only  was  given  to  drink,  and 
the  grain  was  mixed  with  water  into  the  form  of  a  thick  slop  just 
before  feeding.  From  July  14  to  April  1,  2  pounds  of  sugar  beets  were 
allowed  each  pig  daily.  The  pigs  were  fed  as  follows:  Lot  I  received 
corn  meal  only  to  April  5,  then  a  mixture  of  one-fifth  cotton-seed 
meal  and  four- fifths  corn  meal  for  four  weeks,  closing  with  two  weeks 
on  corn  meal;  Lot  II  received  one-third  corn  meal  and  two-thirds 
wheat  middlings;  Lot  III  received  one-fifth  cotton- seed  meal  and 
four-fifths  corn  meal.  Lot  IV  received  one-fifth  cotton-seed  meal 
and  four-fifths  corn  meal  for  four  weeks,  then  corn  meal  for  two 
weeks,  next  the  cotton-seed  meal  mixture  for  four  weeks,  then  back 
to  corn  meal  only  for  two  weeks,  and  alternating  in  this  manner 
until  the  experiment  closed. 

The  onty  signs  of  lack  of  appetite  were  in  Lot  I,  where  exclusive 
corn-meal  feeding  proved  rather  severe  for  such  young  pigs,  and  in 
Lot  III,  where  a  dullness  of  appetite  was  noticed  for  about  two 
weeks.  This  was  only  temporary.  One  pig  in  Lot  IV  died  on  Feb- 
ruary 15,  one  week  after  it  had  been  taken  from  the  cotton-seed  meal 
ration  and  placed  on  corn  meal,  and  2  pigs  in  Lot  III  died  on  Feb- 
ruary 20,  after  they  had  been  on  a  cotton-seed  meal  ration  continu- 
ously for  forty  days.6  "  No  further  losses  occurred,  *  *  *  and  the 
pigs  thrived  and  made  good  gains."  One  pig  in  Lot  IV  showed 
symptons  of  sickness,  but  recovered. 

After  April  5,  Lot  I  was  given  the  same  management  and  feed  as 
Lot  IV,  but  there  were  no  injurious  results.  On  the  contrary,  their 
gains  increased.  This  was  also  noticed  with  Lot  IV.  During  the 
periods  that  the  hogs  were  on  a  straight  corn-meal  ration,  except  dur- 
ing the  closing  period,  when  their  greater  maturity  enabled  them  to 
make  use  of  a  more  carbonaceous  ration,  the  gains  were  light  and 
expensive,  but  when  the  cotton-seed  mixture  was  resumed  the  gains 
were  large  and  economical,  disregarding  the  effect  of  loss  by  death. 

« An.  Rpt..  1901-02. 

&Din\viddie  had  a  similar  experience.  See  Bui.  No.  76,  p.  147,  Arkansas 
Expt.  Sta. 


126 


i:i   READ    OF    ANIMAL    INM  3TB1 


The  following  table  shows  the  results  of  the  one  hundred  and 
twenty-six  days  feeding  for  the  pigs  thai  survived: 

ling  pig*  on  cdtton-*  •  d  nu  al  rati 


A- 

Nuiii-    weigh! 
nary  n. 

weight 

1 'on  mis. 

amount 

per  100    ***   i,IM,r 

Lot  1:                                                   I '■.!,,, ,1s. 

I'on  nils 

■ 

1  .lid  rs. 

D  in. -ill       ID 

125 

470             :.\»;i 

Lot  II: 

m  meal  i 1 

Wheat  middling  f.  J 

»•-. 

l'.H 

146 

LI.". 

Lot  III: 

Ootton-eeedmoal 
■n  meal  i | 

m 

LOT 

Lot  IV: 

Alternate  i 

3 

ii 

178 

184 

LOB 

368 

Burtis  and  Malone  suggesl  that  had  the  cotton-seed  meal  lots  been 
running  on  greeu  pasture  from  the  beginning  of  the  experiment  n< 
Losses  would  have  occurred.  They  also  suggest  the  probability  thai 
a  ration  of  one-tenth  to  one-fifth  cotton-seed  meal  may  be  fed  for  an 
Indefinite  time  if  pigs  have  the  run  of  green  pasture. 

THK    ARKANSAS    EXPERIMENTS. 


In  addition  to  throwing  Light  on  the  pathological  features  of  cotton- 
seed poisoning,  Dinwiddie0  lias  corroborated  the  results  of  those  sta- 
tions, which  have  shown  that,  when  properly  fed,  cotton-seed  meal  is 
a  valuable  pig  feed,  if  Losses  can  be  avoided.  In  the  experiments  in 
which  all  the  pigs  died,  Lot  I  received  a  ration  of  cotton-seed  meal  l 
part  and  corn  chops  3  parts;  Lot  II  received  cotton-seed  meal  1  part, 
and  corn  meal  3  parts,  with  roots;  Lot  III  received  cotton-seed  meal  1 
part  and  wheat  bran  3  parts,  and  Lot  [V  received  bran  l  part  and  corn 
Chops  3  parts.  There  were  three  pie;s  in  each  pen,  and  feeding  began 
January  l.  L9Q2.  The  pigs  were  confined  in  pens  with  an  open  shed 
tor  shelter,  were  watered  and  \\'i\  t  wiee  daily,  ami  had  a  mixture  of 
hard-wood  ashes  and  salt  supplied  constantly.  The  results  are  tabu- 
lated as  follows: 

ling  pigs  on  cottonseed  meal  rai 


Number 

ofdaye      Eaten  ,.;U\T '"  .  dailvto 
untilfirst'perhead .        '>     '  '     initial 

death.  ne*a 


Lot 


Lot  I 

Lot  ill 


Pound*. 


I 


L6 

l  ■> 


Dailv 


Initial         ',';l1,i:T.     gatato 
weighl  !      initial 


Founds. 

41 


Pound*, 

1 
1 


8.1 
LI 


"Bui.  No.  Sta. 


THE    HOG     [NDUSTRY. 


L27 


Dinwiddie  points  out  particularly  thai  a  corn-meal  and  cotton-seed- 
meal  ration,  which  one  would  naturally  selecl  as  giving  the  proper 
proportions  between  nitrogenous  and  carbohydrate  constituents, 
proved  the  most  fatal  in  his  experiments,  and  that  tin*  bran  and  cot- 
ton-seed  meal  ration,  the  most  nitrogenous  of  the  three,  required  the 
most  time  for  the  dangerous  property  to  asserl  itself.  Contrary  to 
what  one  would  expect  from  the  Oklahoma  results,  roots  did  not  have 
so  good  an  effect  as  the  wheat  bran. 

The  pigs  received  from  0.64  to  0.8  pound  of  cotton  seed  per  head 
daily,  which  was  from  1.5  to  1.6  per  cent  of  their  initial  body  weight. 
The  first  death  occurred  in  the  case  of  the  pigs  on  corn  and  cotton- 
seed meal  thirty-five  days  after  the  feeding  commenced,  an  average 
of  23  pounds  cotton-seed  meal  being  eaten  per  head.  In  the  case  of 
the  pigs  fed  corn,  cotton-seed  meal,  and  roots,  the  first  death  was 
forty  days  after  the  beginning,  an  average  per  head  of  25  pounds  of 
cotton-seed  meal  being  eaten.  The  first  death  in  the  case  of  the  pigs 
on  bran  and  cotton-seed  meal  occurred  sixty-one  days  after  the  begin- 
ning, 45  pounds  of  cotton-seed  meal  being  eaten  per  head.  Up  to  the 
time  of  death  the  gains  of  the  pigs  on  cotton-seed  meal  were  as  good 
or  better  than  those  of  the  pigs  on  corn  chops  and  bran  (Lot  IV). 

Following  the  experiment  in  which  all  the  pigs  on  cotton-seed  meal 
died,  Dinwiddie a  fed  4  native  pigs,  averaging  about  50  pounds  in 
weight,  on  various  rations,  cotton-seed  meal  being  a  prominent  factor, 
constituting  one-fourth  of  the  ration.  Turnips  were  fed  for  eighty 
days,  after  winch  rye,  oats,  and  alfalfa  were  given  for  two  months. 
The  pigs  were  fed  from  Februaty  26  to  November  6,  1902.  Onlj7  1 
received  cotton-seed  meal  throughout  the  experiment,  and  for  a  small 
part  of  the  time  none  was  given  to  it.  The  other  pigs  received  rations 
of  equal  parts  of  bran  and  corn  meal  or  ear  corn  after  being  taken 
from  the  cotton-seed-meal  ration. 

Dinwiddie  presents  the  following  tabulation  of  the  results  of  this 
experiment: 

Feeding  pigs  on  cotton-seed  meal  rations. 


Designation  of  pig. 

N  umber 
of  days 
fed  cotton- 
seed meal. 

Weight  of 

cotton- 
seed meal 
eaten. 

Weight  of 
cotton-seed 
meal  eaten 
daily  in  first 
period  (80 
days). 

Daily  con- 
sumption of 
cotton-seed 

meal  to  in- 
itial weight. 

Weight  of 
cotton-seed 
meal  eaten 
daily  in  sec- 
ond period 
(59  days). 

Weight  of 
cotton-seed 
meal  eaten 
daily  for  re- 
mainder of 
test. 

A  . 

139 

248 
198 
198 

Pounds. 

80 

242 

137 

137 

Pound?. 
0.58 
.58 
.58 

.58 

Per  cent. 
1.4 
1.4 
1.4 
1.4 

Pounds. 
o0.55 
.55 
.55 

.55 

Pounds. 

B 

b\  5 

C 

c\ 

D 

c\ 

a  Decrease  probably  due  to  a  lar-er  supply  of  green  feed. 
b  One  hundred  days.    (Cotton-seed  meal  1.  corn  meal  3.) 
c  Fifty-nine  days. 

A  third  testa  was  made  in  which  rations  of  cotton-seed  meal  1  part 
and  bran  3  parts  and  cotton-seed  meal  1  part  and  wheat  chops  3  parts 

fl  Bui.  No.  76,  Arkansas  Expt.  Sta. 


L28 


i:i  1:1   \r    OF     \.M\l  \l.    [NDU8TBY. 


were  fed.  The  former  ration  was  fed  for  ninety-five  days  to  6  pigs, 
which  averaged  about  50  pounds  in  weight.  The  latter  was  given  for 
ninety- nine  days  to  I  Tamwortfa  pigs,  averaging  about  50  pounds  in 
weight.     The  following  table  shows  the  results: 

/  ■'.  i  ding  pigs  on  cotton-*  •  drtm  ol  rations. 


■  Ion. 

Num- 
ber «'f 

Tun.'  ted 

cotton- 

seed 

in. -ai 

amounl 

COttOll- 

■eed 
meal 

.•at.  -ii. 

■ 
amount 
cotton- 
seed meal 
:.  dur- 
ing Aral 
month. 

bton- 
seed  meal 
esti- 

1  ini- 
tial body 
ight 

amotmt 

•  .n- 
seed  meal 

daily 

•  first 
month. 

tton- 

•  ii.  -ill 
daily 

(In:- 

i   me*]    1. 

6 
4 

06 
00 

M 

scb. 
0.4 

10 

nds. 

1'onnds. 

Cotton-seed    meal    l. 

wheat  chops  -i 

■'  Firs!  half  <>f  period. 


There  were  no  Losses  from  these  rations,  and  the  pi.Lr>  made  small 
gains. 

Effect  of  cottonseed  meal  on  pregnant  sows. — Dinwiddie*  fed  a 
native  SOW  carrying  her  third  litter  on  a  ration  of  cotton-seed  meal  1 
part  and  bran  .'5  parts  for  eighty  days  before  farrowing.  She  ate  a 
total  amount  of  1 12  pounds  of  cotton-seed  meal,  which  was  L.39  pounds 
daily  and  0.8  per  cent  of  the  estimated  initial  body  weight.  The 
ration  agreed  with  her  and  there  appeared  i«>  be  no  harmful  effects  on 
the  fetal  liner,  it  being  farrowed  safely,  with  no  stillbirths. 

.  ct  of  crucU  cotton  oU. — Dinwiddie0  fed  •'{  pigs  on  a  rat  ion  of  corn 
meal  1  part,  wheal  bran  2 parts,  and  crude  cotton  oil  0.1  to  0.4  part. 
The  amounl  of  cotton  oil  fed  (estimating  the  fat  content  of  cotton 
meal  at  L4  percent)  was  equivalent  to  that  contained  in  from  0.25  to 
L8  pounds  of  cotton-seed  meal,  the  smaller  amount  having  proved 
fatal  in  the  Arkansas  results,  already  discussed.  These  pigs  were  on 
the  cotton-oil  ration  one  hundred  and  forty-four  days.  The  amount 
of  oil  fed  for  the  entire  time  to  each  pig  was  21  pounds,  equivalent  to 
L50  pounds  of  cotton-seed  meal.  The  average  daily  amount  of  oil 
consumed  varied  from  0.06  pound  (meal  equivalent,  0.4  pound  )  to 0.24 
pound  (meal  equivalent,  1.6  pounds).  The  average  daily  amount  of 
oil  fed  for  the  entire  test  was  0.14  pound  (meal  equivalent,  l  pound). 
rldie  pigs  made  an  average  daily  gain  of  0.6  pound,  and  suffered  no 
serious  effects  from  the  oil. 

/  's,  of  cotton-set  d  meal  in  fh<  fi  >  d  lot.  —The  ase  of  cotton-seed  meal 
in  the  feed  lot  must  be  very  carefully  guarded,  especially  until  the 
conditions  under  which  it  may  be  used  without  danger  and  the  cir- 
cumstances which  govern  the  demonstration  of  its  poisonous  proper- 
ties are  more  thoroughly  understood.  The  feeding  of  the  cotton-seed 
meal  which  the  South  produces  is  one  of  the  ureal"  st  problems  of  agri- 


■■■  Bui.  No.  76,  Arkansas  Expt.  Sta. 


THE    BOG    INIM'STKY.  129 

culture  in  thai  seel  ion  yet  to  be  solved  satisfactorily.  [t  is  not  diffi- 
cult to  appreciate  whal  maybe  gained  if  some  of  this  by-product, 
which  has  such  high  feeding  and  fertilizing  value,  and  which  is 
exported  in  such  enormous  quantities,  can  be  converted  into  pork 
products,  which  are  now  largely  imported  from  other  Stales. 

PACKING-HOUSE    PRODUCTS. 

The  frugality  of  the  modern  meat  packer  has  become  almost  pro- 
verbial. Less  than  twenty  years  ago  the  disposal  of  the  offal  of  slaugh- 
tering was  a  problem,  but  at  present  there  is  very  little  waste,  and  the 
packer  has  actually  come  to  regard  the  by-products  as  the  principal 
source  of  profit  in  his  business.  The  preparation  of  these  by-products 
for  use  as  animal  feed  is  one  of  the  later  developments  of  this  branch 
of  the  industry.  Fertilizers  have  long  been  prominent  in  the  sales, 
the  material  that  enters  into  their  composition  being  meat  scraps, 
blood,  bone,  hair,  intestinal  contents,  etc.  The  use  of  tankage,  a  by- 
product that  has  had  its  sale  entirely  as  a  fertilizer,  is  growing  among 
pig  feeders,  and  has  been  studied  by  Plumb  and  Yan  Norman  at  the 
Indiana  Station,  and  by  Kennedy  and  Marshall  at  the  Iowa  Station. 
Beef  meal  is  also  a  packing-house  product,  whose  feeding  value  was 
studied  along  with  that  of  tankage  in  the  Iowa  experiment. 

Character  of  packing-house  by-products. — Plumb  and  Yan  Xormana 
state  that  tankage  may  contain  scraps  of  meat,  intestines,  and  their 
contents,  hair,  etc.  It  is  classed  as  concentrated  and  crushed  tankage. 
Concentrated  tankage  is  not  used  for  animal  food.  Crushed  tankage 
is  said  to  be  of  several  grades,  being  graded  according  to  the  ammonia 
and  phosphoric-acid  content,  although  it  is  probable  that  the  tankage 
graded  as  No.  1  is  free  from  the  contents  of  intestines- 
Kennedy  and  Marshall6  used  two  brands  of  tankage  made  by  Chicago 
packers.     One  of  these  is  described  as  follows  : 

Digester  tankage  is  made  from,  meat  scraps,  fat  trimmings,  and  scrap  bones. 
These  are  taken  up  as  fast  as  taken  from  the  animals  and  put  into  a  large  steel 
tank  and  cooked  under  a  live  steam  pressure  of  40  pounds  to  the  square  inch, 
which  cooks  out  the  tallow.  After  the  steam  is  turned  off  it  is  allowed  to  settle, 
when  the  grease  rises  to  the  top  and  is  drawn  off.  After  the  grease  is  drawn  off 
the  tankage  is  kept  agitated,  and  by  evaporation  the  water  is  extracted  until  the 
tankage  contains  about  8  per  cent  moisture.  It  is  then  taken  out  of  the  tank, 
allowed  to  cool,  is  ground,  and  stored  ready  for  shipment.  This  tankage  is  sup- 
posed to  contain  about  60  per  cent  protein  and  10  per  cent  fat. 

The  manufacture  of  the  other  tankage  is  thus  described : 
This  product,  like  the  one  just  described,  is  made  from  meat  scraps,  scrap  bones, 
eta  Quoting  the  words  of  the  manufacturer,  it  is  as  follows:  u  Tankage  is  the 
product  which  drops  to  the  bottom  in  our  rendering  tanks  when  we  are  rendering 
out  grease,  tallow,  etc.,  at  our  various  packing  houses.  It  has  been  thoroughly 
cooked  iinder  40  pounds  pressure  for  several  hours,  which  thoroughly  destroys 
any  disease  germs  which  might  possibly  be  in  the  raw  meat.     This  product  is 

«Bul.  No.  90,  Indiana  Expt.  Sta.  &  Bui.  No.  65,  Iowa  Expt.  Sta. 

8396— No.  47—04 9 


L30 


BUREAU    01     ANIMAL    INDUSTRY. 


■  \  and  then  dried  In  steam  driers  at  a  high  temperature.    Ir  Is  then  ground 
and  shipped  In  LOO  and  300  pound  Backs." 

The  beef  meal,  used  in  the  [owa    test,  is  described  a^  follows: 

This  product  is  made  From  scraps  of  meal  and  bone  from  which  the  groaoo  has 
ctracted  and  the  liquors  concentrated  by  cooking.    These  are  then  pn 
dried,  and  ground  in  preparation  for  the  market,     [tis  claimed  to  contain  from  40 
nt  of  protein. 

Analyses  of  packing  housi  by-products. — The  analysis  of  tankage 
reported  by  ih<-  [ndiana  station  Is  as  follows: 

Per  ■•<.nt. 
Moisture 
Protein  19.81 

Ether  extract  

Crude  fiber     

Nitrogen  free  extract  

Ash 15.94 


100 


The  Iowa  Station  analyses,  Including  thai  of  the  corn  meal  used, 

ar<-  as  follows: 

Analyses  off*  eding  stuffs.       W&  ms.)  " 


Ration. 


Corn  meal. 
Beef  meal  - 

Tan  k  1 1 

Do 


Water. 


Ash.      Protein, 


/'.  ro  nt .    /'.  r  i  •  nt.   /'<  ret  nt. 
LI.  06 
6.10 

9.06 


1.66 
16.60 
12.85 


Crud.     «* 

tract. 


fiber. 


■ 
6L10 
80.10         10.80 


15.60 


Ether 


16.80 

11. To 


"Bui.  No.  fM.  Iowa  Expt.  Sta. 

F>  <  ding  tankagi  in  a  corn-im  "I  ration. — In  the  Indiana  :'  experiment 
16  young  pigs  were  fed  bo  determine  the  value  of  tankage.  The  pigs 
Were  purebred  Poland  chinas  and  Berkshires.  There  were  1  Lots,  2 
of  each  breed  in  each  lot.  The  tankage  was  specially  prepared  by  the 
packers  who  furnished  it  to  the  experiment  station,  and  was  "made 
from  hones  and  meat  taken  from  the  cutting  room,  tanked  immedi- 
ately, and  pressed  and  dried." 

The  conditions  of  the  experiment  were  equal  for  all  lots:  all  bad  an 
opportunity  for  getting  exercise  and  each  lot  was  in  a  separate  Lnclos- 
nre.  There  was  do  sickness  and  Lot  III  was  the  only  one  Bhowing 
lack  of  appetite  at  any  time.  The  pigs  were  \'<-<\  a-*  follows:  Lot  I.  10 
parts  corn  meal  and  l  part  tankage;  Lot  II,  5  parts  corn  meal  and  l 
pari  tankage;  Lot  III.  corn  meal;  Lot  IV,  L0  parts  of  a  mixture  of 
equal  parts  of  corn  meal  and  shorts  and  l  part  tankage.  'The  U-i^l  was 
weighed  out  and  then  mixed  with  tepid  water  in  the  proportion  of 
about  2  parts  of  water  to  l  part  of  (<-<<\.  a  slop  of  medium  thinness 
being  made.     Bach  lot  of  pigs  had  access  to  ashes  and  salt.     The 


a  BnJ  towa  Bxpt.  Sta, 


BnL  No.  90,  [ndiana  Bxpt  Sta, 


TH>:    HtXJ     INDlsTRY. 


131 


of  feed  used  was  as  follows:  Com  meal,  $20  per  ton;  shorts,  $16  per 
ton;  tankage,  $30  per  ton. 

At  the  Iowa  station"  five  Lots  of  6  pigs  each,  averaging  205  pounds, 
were  fed  for  forty-nine  days,  to  note  the  value  of  packing-house  prod- 
ucts. "Each  lot  contained  3  crossbred  Poland  China-Yorkshires, 
2  Poland  China-Duroc  Jerseys,  and  1  Poland  China-Berkshire."  Corn 
was  used  as  the  basis  of  comparison  and  the  pigs  were  fed  as  follows: 
Lot  I  received  corn  meal  alone;  Lot  II  received  about  5  parts  of  corn 
meal  and  1  part  of  beef  meal;6  Lot  III  received  about  5  parts  of  corn 
meal  and  1  part  of  digester  tankage;  Lot  IV  received  about  5  parts  of 
corn  meal  and  1  part  of  tankage. 

The  market  prices  of  the  corn  meal  and  tankage  are  given  as 
follows:  Corn  meal,  $22  per  ton;  digester  tankage,  832  per  ton; 
tankage,  825  per  ton. 

The  Iowa  pigs  were  shipped  to  Chicago  and  the  lots  were  sold 
separately.  They  brought  $7.55,  the  extreme  top  of  the  market  for 
the  day  of  sale. 

The  following  table  shows  the  results  of  these  experiments : 

Tankage  in  a  corn-meal  ration  for  pigs. 


Ration. 


Aver 

Num- :     age 
ber     weight  Total 
of       at  be- 
pigs.  |    gin- 
ning. 


Feed  per  100 
pounds  gain. 


Cost  per 

100 

pounds 

gain. 


Indiana: 

Corn  meal  10. . . 

Tankagel 

Corn  meal  5 

Tankagel 

Corn  meal 

Corn  meal  and 

shorts  10 

Tankagel. 

Iowa: 

Corn  meal 

Corn  meal  and 
digester  tank- 
age  

Corn  meal 

Tankage. 


Dollars. 
3.80 

4.00 
5.20 

3.60 

5.10 


4.50 
4.90 


These  experiments  seem  to  show  that  tankage  has  a  great  deal  of 
value  for  balancing  a  pig's  ration. 

In  the  Indiana  test  the  use  of  tankage  lessened  the  amount  of  grain 
required  per  100  pounds  gain  from  203  pounds  to  175  pounds — from 
38.9  to  33.5  per  cent — showing  tankage  to  be  very  profitable  with  the 
prices  that  were  charged  for  grain  in  this  instance. 


«  Bui.  No.  65. 

&  One  lot  of  pigs  in  this  experiment  were  fed  to  note  the  value  of  condimental 
feeds.     (See  pp.  133,  134  for  the  results.) 


132 


BUREAU    OF    ANIMAL    INDI  STRY. 


silkier  coats,  and  ate 
The  oorn-fed  lot  was 


Ln  the  Iowa  test  L40  pounds  and  96  pounds,  respectively,  were  saved 
i»\  the  use  of  tankage  30.4  and  20.8  percent  nol  so  good  a  record 
as  obtained  in  Indiana.  The  difference  between  the  money  cost  per 
LOO  pounds  <>f  the  oorn-fed  and  tankage-fed  Lots  was  also  much  Less 
than  in  Indiana. 

The  condition  of  the  pigs  in  the  Indiana  test  was  remarked  upon. 
The  tankage-fed  pigs  handled  better,  had  fine 
with  much  more  relish  than  those  <>n  corn  alone 
conspicuous  by  reason  of  its  poor  condition. 

At  the  conclusion  of  their  experiments,  Plumb  and  Van  Norman 
gave  tin-  pigs  that  had  been  <>n  corn  meal  a  ration  of  5  parts  of  corn 
meal  and  l  part  tankage  \'o\-  forty-nine  days.  There  was  immediate 
improvement  in  their  appetites,  the  hair  softened,  and  the  skin  handled 
better.  There  was  a  marked  improvement  in  growth,  which  con- 
trasted Btrongly  with  the  gains  made  while  on  corn  meal  only. 

Experimenters  caution  stockmen  to  use  that  tankage  only  which 
has  been  specially  prepared  for  feeding  purposes. 

Beef  meal  in  a  corn  meal  rut  ton. — The  results  of  the  lot  of  pigs  that 
were  fed  beef  meal  at  the  Lowa  Station  are  compared  below  with  those 
on  corn  meal.     The  price  of  the  beef  meal  used  in  this  test  was  $22 

per  ton. 

Beef  mail  in  <>  cortirmeal  rut  ion  for  pigs. 


Num- 
ber 

Average 
weight 

Total 

Num- 
ber of 

Aver- 
age 

Feed  eaten. 

i  per  100 
pounds  gain. 

perlOD 

of 

pigs. 

at  begin- 
ning. 

gain. 

davs 
fed. 

dailv 

gain. 

Grain. 

Beef 

meal. 

Grain 

IHUHKLS 

gain. 

Corn  meal.. 

6 

Lbs. 
197 

197 

Lbs. 
596 

7i '7 

49 
49 

U.S. 

8.40 

Lb*. 
8,741 

Urn. 

m 

DoO*. 

:>.i" 

Corn  meelSparta, 

beef  meal  1  part. 

4.80 

Beef  meal,  like  tankage,  seems  to  be  valuable  in  the  pig's  ration. 
The  amount  of  grain  saved  per  100  pounds  gain  by  the  use  of  beef 

meal  was  1 16  pounds,  or  24.9  per  cent. 

8UGAE    BY-PRODUCTS. 

/"  ding  beet  molasses. — Clinton  fed  5  pigs  averaging  s7  pounds  <>n 
a  ration  <>f  corn  meal  8  pounds,  beet  molasses  L2  pounds,  and  >kim 
milk  20  pounds.  " This  quantity  was  given  in  two  daily  feeds,  and 
the  pi.ur>  apparently  did  not  relish  the  molasses,  yet  they  ate  it." 
Three  days  after  feeding  commenced  they  ate  the  morning  feed  well, 

but  within  an  hour  1  pig  was  dead  and  another  died  a  few  hours 
later.  Postmortem  examination  indicated  poisoning.  The  surviving 
pigs  were  then  placed  on  a  corn  meal  and  milk  ration,  but  made 
expensive  gains,  the  cause  assigned  being  the  effect  of  molasses 
feeding. 


"13ul.  No.  LW,  Cornell  dniv.  Expt.  Sta. 


THE    HOG    INDUSTRY. 


133 


This  experiment  had  results  similar  to  those  of  German  investi- 
gators with  beet  molasses.  It  may  be  that  this  by-product  is  not  a 
safe  feed  for  pigs.  However,  oilier  molasses  by-products  in  sugar 
production,  such  as  cane  molasses,  are  valuable  for  feeding  horses, 
cattle,  and  sheep,  and  many  farmers  value  highly  the  "skimmings" 
from  sorghum  vats  as  a  fattening  feed  for  pigs.  There  are  very  few 
experimental  data  on  the  feeding  value  of  the  by-products  from  sugar 
refining. 

CONDIMENTAL  FEEDS. 

Two  experiments  are  noted  which  deal  with  the  value  of  condi- 
mental  stock  feeds  in  pork  production.  These  feeds  have  quite  gen- 
eral use  over  the  country,  and,  on  account  of  strict  legislative  regula- 
tions and  the  supervision  and  analyses  by  the  experiment  stations, 
they  are  generally  of  high  feeding  value,  having  a  high  nutrient  con- 
tent. They  are  prepared  with  palatability  in  view  and  often  contain 
some  harmless  drug  that  increases  the  attractiveness  of  the  feed  and 
may  have  a  good  effect  on  the  digestive  functions.  They  are  thus 
frequently  found  valuable  where  animals  are  being  crowded  or  are 
suffering  from  the  effects  of  improper  feeding.  Oil  meal  usually 
forms  the  basis  of  these  feeds  and  is  supplemented  by  bran,  bean 
meal,  cotton-seed  meal,  ginger,  fenugreek,  etc.  These  feeds  range  in 
price  per  ton  from  $30  to  $500.  The  manufacturers  generally  direct 
that  they  be  used  in  very  small  amounts. 

Feeding  experiments. — At  the  Indiana  Station  Plumb  a  fed  two  lots 
of  4  pigs  each  to  determine  the  value  of  American  stock  food.  The 
pigs  were  gilts,  four  months  old.  There  were  3  Poland  Chinas  and  1 
Chester  White  in  each  lot.  The  experiment  lasted  one  hundred  and 
twenty-two  days.  Lot  I  was  fed  a  mixture  of  equal  parts  of  shorts 
and  hominy  feed  and  a  small  amount  of  American  stock  food;  Lot  II 
received  the  same  ration  without  the  stock  food.  At  the  Iowa  Station 
Kennedy  and  Marshall6  fed  two  lots  of  5  crossbred  pigs  each  averag- 
ing 205  pounds.  One  lot  on  corn  meal  and  Standard  stock  food  was 
compared  with  a  lot  on  corn  meal  alone.  The  following  are  the 
results  of  the  two  tests: 

Feeding  pigs  ivith  and  ivithout  stock  food. 


Num- 
ber of 
pigs. 

Aver- 
age 
weight 
at  be- 
gin- 
ning. 

Total 
gain. 

Num- 
ber 
of 
days 
fed. 

Aver- 
age 
daily- 
gain. 

Feed  eaten. 

Feed  per  100 
pounds  gain. 

Cost 
per  100 
pounds 

gain. 

Profit 

Ration. 

Grain. 

Stock 
food. 

Grain. 

Stock 
food. 

per 
Pig. 

Indiana: 

Stock  food 

No  stock  food. 
Iowa: 

Stock  food.... 

No  stock  food. 

Lbs. 
4 
4 

5 
5 

Lbs. 
66 
65 

197 

197 

Lbs. 
682 
689 

655 
596 

122 
122 

49 
49 

Lbs. 
1.42 
1.43 

2.23 

2.08 

Lbs. 
2,547 

2,581 

2,858 

2,747 

Lbs. 
64 

14 

Lbs. 
373 
375 

436 
461 

Lbs. 
9.38 

2.14 

Dolls. 
3.00 
2.60 

5.00 
5.10 

Dolls. 
c9.66 
^13.94 

2.64 
2.39 

a  Bui.  No.  93. 


ft  Bui.  No.  65. 


c  Profit  per  lot. 


i:;i 


BUREAU    OF    animal    INDUSTRY. 


The  Indiana  results  show   that   nothing  was  gained  by  the  use  of 

the  prepared  feed;  in  fact,  there  was  indicated  a  decided  disadvan- 

as  more  feed  was  required  per  LOO  pounds  of  gain  and  the  profits 

were  \«-iv  much  Leas  than  with  the  lot  not  having  the  prepared  feed. 

The  [owa  results  show  a  saving  in  cost  of  10  cents  per  LOO  pounds 
gain  for  the  pigs  receiving  Standard  stock  food  and  a  del  profit  per  pig 
of  -•"•  cents  in  favorof  I  ids  lot  as  compared  \\  i  1  b  pigs  onicorn  meal  alone. 
Ii  is  needless  to  point  out  that  the  results  of  these/two  experiments 
Bhould  not  be  too  closely  compared.  In  addition  bo  the  stock  food 
given  one  lot,  all  the  Indiana  pigs  were  on  a  mixed  ration;  whereas 
in  tin-  Iowa  tost  the  stock  food  was  the  only  variation  from  corn 
meal  that  was  permitted.  The  results  from  adding  any  palatable  feed 
to  a  straight  corn-meal  ration  will  be  greater  than  the  addition  of  the 
Same  <>!•  a  similar  feed  to  a  mixed  fat  ion,  because  in  tin-  one  case  vari- 
ety is  the  greatest  necessity  of  the  ration,  while  in  tin-  other  it  is 
already  present.  The  same,  if  not  very  much  better,  results  would 
have  been  seen  had  pigs  on  a  ration  of  corn  meal  and  green  or  suc- 
culent feed  or  dairy  by-products  been  compared  with  pigs  on  a  ration 
of  corn  meal  only;  and  oil  meal  would  probably  have  had  a  similar 
effect.  While  some  of  the  difference  in  results  may  have  been  due  to 
a  difference  in  the  quality  of  the  two  stock  foods,  it  would  naturally 
be  expected  that  not  onty  a  better  showing  in  rate  and  economy  of 
gain  for  the  stock  food  when  conditions  resemble  those  of  the  Iowa 
i<-st  would  be  made,  but  it  would  also  be  expected  that  there  would  be 
a  relatively  greater  showing  from  the  standpoint  of  total  feed  eaten. 
Both  of  these  results  are  manifest;  indeed,  in  the  Indiana  test  the 
stock  food  seems  to  have  had  no  effect  whatever  on  the  appetite. 

Plumb"  mentions  a  test  by  a  student  at  Purdue  University  where 
Kauh's  stock  food  was  fed  to  3  pigs  for  thirty-live  days,  after  which 
they  received  Standard  stock  food  for  forty-nine  days.  They  had 
equal  pads  of  corn  meal  and  shorts,  and  were  compared  with  a  lot  of 
3  pigs  On  coin  meal  and  shorts  only.  There  was  a  total  gain  of  2.5 
pounds  in  favor  of  the  prepared  food  first  mentioned.  The  total 
balance  was  21  pounds  of  gain  in  favor  of  the  condimenial  feed. 
The  results  were  as  follows: 

/■'.  i  ding  pigs  with  and  without  stock  food. 


Ration 

Average 
weight 
;it  begin- 
ning. 

Total 

gain. 

X  u  n 

ber 
of 

Av.-r 

daily 

eaten. 

Peed  p 
pounds 

per  l'"' 

pounds 

gain. 

Total 

Grain. 

St.M'k 

Grain. 

si.K-k 

profit 

Stock  t 1 

NO    St.x-k   f«M»«l 

68 

J',,u,t<ls 

Bound*. 

l  :.t 
l   i:, 

/'..)',  Ills. 

1,858 

1 .  B86 

LOO 



Pounds. 

B60 

Dollar*. 

4.  l-.l 

Dollar*. 
I  H 

.;  .50 

[ndiana  Expt  Sta, 


THE    HOG    I  mm  BTR1  .  LOO 

These  reYolts  favor  the  stock  food  in  aboul  the  same  proportion  as 
in  the  IowaYest. 

DAIRY  BY-PRODUCTS. 

The  use  of  the  by-products  of  the  dairy  and  creamery  (skim  milk, 
buttermilk,  and  whey)  is  one  of  the  most  interesting  subjects  of 
study  in  pork  production.  The  value  of  the  milk  is  known  on  every 
farm,  although  it  may  Dot  !>»'  fully  appreciated,  and  anyone  who  has 
fed  pigs  knows  tin4  keen  appetite  that  these  animals  have  for  milk 
and  its  products.  In  the  neighborhood  of  many  large  dairies  pork 
production  has  become  a  very  prominent  and  lucrative  branch  of  the 
dairy  industry. 

Regarding  solely  their  chemical  composition,  the  by-products  of 
the  dairy  contain  most  of  the  indispensable  feeding  constituents  of 
the  milk  from  which  they  are  produced. 

The  residue  from  the  separation  of  cream  (skim  milk)  and  that 
from  churning  (buttermilk)  leave  two  products  that  contain  practi- 
cally all  the  protein  and  carbohydrates  of  the  whole  milk.  In  cheese 
making,  the  whey  that  is  left  is  the  least  valuable  of  the  dairy 
by-products,  the  greater  part  of  the  casein  and  fat  of  the  milk  being 
retained  in  the  cheese.  While  whey  is  by  no  means  worthless  for 
feeding  purposes,  it  can  readily  be  seen  that  if  skim  milk  and  butter- 
milk have  higher  feeding  values  for  pigs  than  whey,  butter  making 
and  pig  feeding  will  more  profitably  accompany  each  other  than  will 
cheese  making  and  pig  feeding.  These  bj^-products  supply  growing 
material  to  young  animals  and  provide  an  excellent  nitrogenous 
balance  in  the  fattening  ration.  The  constituents  that  remain  in  the 
milk  after  skimming  and  churning  are  the  most  expensive  ones,  con- 
sidered from  the  standpoint  of  feeding  and  fertilizing  value,  and  it  is 
largely  due  to  this  fact  that  dairy  farming  is  so  often  a  profitable 
business  when  conducted  in  a  thorough  manner. 

The  value  of  dairy  by-products  is  not  alone  in  their  nitrogenous 
character.  They  have  an  effect  on  the  digestion  that  brings  results 
out  of  all  proportion  to  their  nutritive  value.  Where  pigs  have  been 
for  a  long  time  on  a  monotonous  ration,  such  as  corn  meal  alone,  they 
lose  appetite,  become  listless,  and  sick,  and  so  make  very  unsatis- 
factory gains.  If  skim  milk  is  given,  even  in  very  small  amounts, 
an  immediate  change  for  the  better  is  noticed — appetite  returns  and 
the  pigs  begin  to  gain  rapidly  in  weight.  As  already  stated,  the  gain 
in  weight  is  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  actual  amount  of  nutrient 
material  in  the  milk,  and  this  peculiarity  has  been  remarked  upon, 
not  only  when  pigs  are  fed  as  indicated  above,  but  also  when  pigs  are 
fed  a  varied  grain  ration  and  skim  milk  in  comparison  with  others 
on  the  grain  ration  only.  Just  why  dairy  by-products  have  this 
effect  is  not  exactly  known,  but  the  suggestion  has  been  made  that 


L36  BUREAU    OF    ANIMAL    INDU8TBY. 

ili.-\  keep  the  digestive  system  in  better  order,  and  thus  enable  the 
animal  actually  to  digest  a  greater  percentage  of  his  feed.  The  same 
fact  has  been  noticed  when  roots  and  green  feed  are  fed.  Pasturing 
on  rape,  alfalfa,  <>!•  th<-  grasses  probably  has  a  similar  effect. 

The  effect  of  dairy  by-products  on  the  carcass  i*>  oneof  the  most 
Important  results  <>f  such  feeding.  Ii  is  generally  admitted  that, 
while  excellent  hams  ;ui<1  hat-on  may  be  produced  without  dairy 
by-products,  the  use  of  these  by-products  will  result  in  pork  of  a 
more  nearly  uniform  high  quality. 

NIK    ll.KMV.    VALUE   OF    DAIRY    BY-PRODUCTS, 

Comparing  grain  and  milk  rations  iviih  rations  of  grain  atom  <iml 
milk  alone,  —  Linfield*  reports  the  results  of  a  series  of  investigations 
at  the  I'tali  station.  In  all,  seven  distinct  experiments  are  given. 
Except  in  one  experiment,  the  pigs  were  confined  <>n  the  north  side  of 
a  barn,  were  furnished  plenty  <»r  bedding,  and  allowed  a  small  run. 
When  grain  alone  was  fed  it  was  mixed  with  water  to  form  a  thin  slop. 
and  when  milk  was  fed  with  grain  it  was  mixed  in  the  same  manner. 
The  milk  was  never  given  sour.  The  hogs  had  access  to  pure  water. 
had  charcoal  and  ashes  in  the  pens,  and  were  fed  twice  daily.  These 
experiments  were  conducted  primarily  with  the  object  of  comparing 
the  value  of  feeding  a  combination  of  grain  and  skim  milk  with  both 
grain  alone  and  skim  milk  alone.  They  varied  somewhat  in  details. 
and  some  difficulty  seems  to  have  been  experienced  in  obtaining  as 
much  milk  as  the  circumstances  required. 

The  grain  was  fed  in  various  combinations  with  the  milk,  and  was 
usually  that  which  was  available  in  that  section  for  feeding  purposes. 
Ii  consisted  of  equal  parts  of  barley  and  bran,  corn  and  wheat,  wheat 
and  bran,  and  corn  meal  and  bran,  and  in  t  wo  experiments  ground 
wheat.  Whey  was  fed  in  the  fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh  experiments; 
ii  formed  not  over  l_  percent  of  the  by-product  in  the* fifth,  but  was 
as  much  as  W  percenl  in  the  last  two.  it  was  a  matter  of  remark 
that  the  results  i;i  these  experiments  were  fully  equal  t<>  those  where 
skim  milk  was  fed  throughout  the  entire  feeding  period,  winch  shows 
that  whey  has  quite  a  high  feeding  value/'  The  quantity  of  skim 
milk  in  the  lots  fed  milk  and  grain  in  comparison  with  grain  alone 
oi-  milk  alone  varied  from  I  to  6  pounds  of  milk  per  pound  of  grain 
fed  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment,  the  amount  of  milk  being 
gradually  decreased  with  the  age  and  weight  of  the  pigs.  The  pigs 
ih<'<l  were  well  bred,  usually  being  Berkshires,  Berkshire  grades,  or 
Poland  China  grades.  The  following  table  is  a  summary  of  these 
experiments. 

.:.  N<>.  57. 

•    Ontario  Agricultural  College  experiments  with  Bweet  and  bout  whey, 

PI-.  t »;.  l  iv 


T1IK    HOG    INDUS'!  \[\  . 


137 


Economy  of  8kim-milk  feeding.0 


Ration. 


Milk  and  grain 

Grain 

Milk 


Number 
of  tests. 


Number 
of  pigs. 


Average 
weight  at 
beginning. 


l'oii  mix. 
40 
63 


Average 
gain. 


/'oil  II ( Is. 


no 

74 


Number 
of  days 

fed. 


L33 

121 
108 


Average 
daily  gain. 


/'omuls. 
1.27 


Ration. 


Milk  and  grain. 

Grain 

Milk 


Feed  eaten  per   Dry  mat 
100  pounds  gain,     ter  per 
100 
pounds 
gain. 


Grain. 


Pounds 
292 

470 


Milk. 


Pounds. 


3.312 


Pounds. 
334 
421 


Diges- 
tible dry 
matter 
per  100 
pounds 
gam. 


Pounds. 
258 
319 


100 

pounds 
milk 
equal 

pounds 
gain. 


Pounds. 
23.2 


14.2 


Average  amount 

feed  eaten  per 

day. 


Grain.      Milk 


Pounds. 
9.74 


a  Bui.  No.  57,  Utah  Expt.  Sta. 

These  results  indicate  that,  in  rate  of  gain,  an  average  of  eight  tests 
with  a  grain-and-milk  ration  shows  gains  made  one-third  faster  than 
in  five  tests  with  grain  alone,  and  nearly  twice  as  rapidly  as  in  four 
tests  with  milk  alone.  The  least  amount  of  dry  matter  required  for 
100  pounds  of  gain  was  that  with  the  pigs  on  milk  alone,  but  the  pigs 
on  grain  and  milk  required  the  least  digestible  dry  matter  per  100 
pounds  gain.  The  returns  from  skim-milk  feeding  are  estimated  by 
Linfield  at  17  cents  per  100  pounds  of  skim  milk  when  grain  and 
milk  were  fed  and  10  cents  per  100  pounds  of  skim  milk  when  milk 
alone  was  fed,  grain  being  valued  at  75  cents  per  100  pounds. 

These  experiments  show  that  pigs  fed  on  grain  and  milk  are  enabled 
to  eat  much  more  feed  than  those  on  grain  alone;  those  on  grain  and 
milk  ate  4.21  pounds  of  dry  matter  per  head  daily;  the  pigs  on  grain 
alone  3;93  pounds  of  dry  matter  per  head  daily,  and  the  daily  average 
of  the  pigs  on  milk  alone  was  only  2  pounds  of  dry  matter.  This  is 
a  point  of  great  importance,  and,  with  the  figures  showing  rate  and 
economy  of  gains,  illustrates  the  fact  that  skim  milk  fed  to  pigs  with 
grain  enables  them  to  eat  more  feed  and  to  make  more  gain  than  pigs 
on  grain  alone. 

The  unsatisfactory  character  of  the  gains  made  by  the  pigs  on  skim 
milk  alone  is  very  apparent.  This  method  of  feeding  should  never 
be  resorted  to. 

Com  and  dairy  byproducts. — At  the  Tennessee  Station  Soule  and 
Fain  a  fed  four  lots  of  pigs  to  compare  a  corn-meal  and  water  ration 
with  others,  in  which  skim  milk  and  whey  were  used.  The  pigs  were 
high-grade  Chester  Whites  and  were  confined  in  pens.  The  rations 
were  as  follows:  Lot  I  was  fed  6  pounds  of  corn  meal  and  10  pounds 
of  water  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment,  increasing  to  8  pounds 
of  corn  meal  and  16  pounds  of  water  toward  the  close.     Lot  II  had  6 


"Vol.  XV.  Bui.  No.  1. 


L38 


BURE  \i     OF    ANIMAL    INDUSTRY. 


pounds  of  corn  meal  and   L8  pounds  of  >kim  milk  at  tin-  beginning, 
increasing  pounds  of  corn   meal  and   10  pounds  of  Bkim  milk 

toward  the  close.  Lot  III  had  i  pounds  of  oorn  meal  and  L2  pounds 
of  Bkim  milk  for  tin-  [irsl  fifteen  days  and  L.75  pounds  of  wheat  meal, 
pounds  of  corn  meal,  and  10  pounds  of  whej  toward  the  close. 
Lot  IV  waa  f ed  2.66  pounds  of  corn  meal,  I  pounds  of  cowpea  hay, 
and  8  pounds  of  skim  milk  at  the  beginning,  which  was  changed  to 
5.5  pounds  of  corn  meal,  L.5  pounds  of  chopped  cowpea  hay,  and 
26.75  pounds  of  skim  milk  toward  the  close. 

These  rations  were  the  amounts  of  feed  thai  each  Lot  received  at  a 
Bingle  feed,  >«>  that  the  daily  rat  i<»n  for  one  lot  of  pigs  was  double  the 
amounts  given  above.  The  feeds  were  valued  as  follows:  Corn  meal, 
$17  per  ton;  pea  hay,  $13.50  per  ton;  wheat  meal,  $25  per  ton;  >kim 
milk,  22  cents  per  LOO  pounds;  whey,  11  cents  per  100  pounds.  The 
results  were  as  follow s: 

Economy  of  skim-milk  ft  eding. 


oil. 

Num- 
ber of 

Nuin- 
Total      berof 
train.       days 
fed. 

daily 
gain. 

Total  dry 

matter 
eaten. 

Dry 

ter  ]H-r  lui 

pounds 

gain. 

( Jorn  meal 

8 

Pounds. 

188          80 

414            80 

80 

848           80 

I'm/mis. 

1 

8.8 
8.0 

nds. 

1,811 
1,080 

1.H17 

418 

Corn  meal  ami  skim  milk 

8 
B 

2 

Mixed  grain, skim  milk,  ami  vrhej 
Oorn  meal,  cowpea  hay,  and  -kim  milk  . 

871 

m 

Slaughter  1 

Ration. 

of  feed.     100  pounds        fit." 

gain. 

Dr«- 

—'lit. 

tinal 

DoUart. 
7.38 

Dollars.        DoUart. 

3.90  ; 

1.80             12.08 

3.40             14.88 

4. 18 

Per 

n  s 

uds. 
13 

Corn  meal  and  skim  milk 

1  grain, skim  milk. and  wh>-\ 
( lorn  meal,  cowpea  hay. and  skim  milk 

17.81 
13.84 
18  89 

16 
16 

1 

• 

Blue  of  manure  and  O  Dflddered. 

The  pigs  were  bought  on  t  hie  Knoxville  market  at  41  cents  per  pound 
and  weighed  from  L30  to  L40  pounds  at  the  time  of  purchase.  They 
a ere  Bold  at  .v.  cents  per  pound. 

The  great  advantages  to  be  gained  by  feeding  dairy  by-products 
with  carbonaceous  concentrates  arc  brought  out  in  the  results.  The 
pigs  on  coin  meal  alone  ate  Less  than  any  others,  and  although  their 
cost  of  iced  was  low  they  were  not  so  profitable  as  those  fed  milk  and 
grain,  which  ate  very  much  more.  An  exception  to  the  general  rule 
is  seen  in  Lot  IV.  which  were  fed  very  anprofitably. 

With  the  pigs  selling  at  5 1  cents  per  pound  live  weight,  the  authors 
estimate  that  this  experiment  returned,  for  the  corn  fed,  66.7  cents  per 

bushel   of  56    pounds,  which   is  said  to  be   26.7  cents  per  bushel  more 

than  Tennessee  farmers  usually  get  for  their  corn.     The  feeding  value 
of  skim  milk  in  this  test  was,  approximately,  28.3  cents  per  100  pounds 


THE    HOG    [NDU8TRY. 


139 


During  the  two  years  following  the  above  experiment  Sonle  and 
Fain  '  studied  the  value  of  skim  milk  in  a  corn-meal  ration  and  in  a 
mixed-meal  ration.  The  pigs  of  the  first  year  were  of  Chester  White 
and  Berkshire  blood,  some  being  Chester  grades  and  others  said  to 
be  Chester  White-Berkshire  crosses.  They  were  above  the  average 
in  quality.  Those  of  the  second  year  were  Berkshire  grades,  below 
the  average  of  the  preceding  year.  The  pigs  were  confined  in  pens 
and  fed  twice  daily.  Feeding  was  carried  on  through  the  winter. 
'Hie  first  winter  "was  cool  and  bracing  and  uniformly  dry;"  the 
second  "was  raw  and  damp,  with  an  excessive  rainfall,  and  this  no 
doubt  had  an  influence  on  the  general  health  of  the  hogs." 

The  lots  which  were  used  to  compare  a  straight  corn-meal  ration 
with  a  corn-meal  and  skim-milk  ration  received,  respectively,  rations 
of  corn  meal  only  and  corn  meal  and  milk  in  the  proportion  of  1  to  8  by 
weight  at  the  start,  the  milk  being  decreased  toward  the  close  so  that 
the  proportion  of  meal  to  milk  was  about  1  to  7. 

Corn  meal  was  charged  at  828  per  ton  during  the  first  year  and  at 
$19  per  ton  during  the  second  year.  Skim  milk  was  charged  at  84 
per  ton  during  both  years. 

The  following  table  shows  some  of  the  results  of  this  investigation. 
The  findings  of  the  two  years  were  averaged,  from  which  average 
these  figures  are  taken : 

Economy  of  skim-milk  feeding. 


Ration. 


Corn  meal 

Corn  meal  and  skim  milk. 


Num- 
ber of 
pigs. 


Total 
gain. 


Pounds. 
7  119 

7  309 


Average    Total  feed  eaten. 

daily     

gain.        Grain.        Milk. 


Pounds.    Pounds. 
0.50  488 

1.35  481 


Pounds. 


Ration. 

Feed  per  100 
pounds  gain. 

Cost  of 
Total  cost     feed  per 
of  feed.     100 pounds 
gain. 

Profit  per 

Grain. 

Milk. 

Pounds. 
410 

Pounds. 

Dollars.        Dollars. 
5.75               5.80 

Dollars. 
1.05 

Corn  meal  and  skim  milk 

160 

1.190 

12.95                4.60 

4.96 

■ 

«  Value  of  manure  and  cost  of  care  not  considered. 

The  favoraDle  results  from  the  feeding  of  skim  milk  with  corn  meal 
are  very  noticeable  in  these  results.  Although  the  addition  of  skim 
milk  added  to  the  cost  of  the  total  feed  and  the  feed  per  100  pounds 
gain  was  accordingly  higher,  the  profit  for  the  pigs  on  skim  milk  was 
83.91  more  than  that  of  those  on  corn  alone. 

Value  of  skim  milk  in  a  mixed  ration. — As  part  of  the  investigation 
of  the  years  just  mentioned,  Soule  and  Faina  studied  the  value  of 


« Vol.  XVI,  Bui.  No.  3,  Tennessee  Expt.  Sta. 


140 


i;i  RE  \r    OF    A.NIMAL    tNDUSTBY. 


skim  milk  in  various  proportions  with  a  mi\<-<l  ration  <>f  corn  meal 
ami  wheal  meal  or  corn  meal  ami  soy-bean  meal.  The  proportions 
of  these  grains  was  l  part  of  wheal  or  soy-beau  meal  to  2  parts  of  corn 
meal.     The  following  prices  per  ton  were  charged  for  the  feed: 


. 


Dollar*.        Dollars. 


Corn  :nitl  wheal  tneaJ 
( Jorn  and  soy-bean  meal 
Corn  meal 

Skim  milk 


The  conditions  were  those  described  in  the  foregoing  paiagraph. 
The  following  table  shows  Borne  of  the  results  of  the  averages  for  the 
two  years  as  published  by  the  station: 

Value  of  skim  milk  in  a  mixed-grain  ration. 


Grain 
Milk  3 
(J  rain 
Milk  6 
Grain 
Milk  8 
Grain 
MilkS 
Grain 
Milk  1: 
Grain 
Milk  8 


Elation. 


Num- 
ber of 
pigs. 


T.-tal 

gain. 


{'•minis. 

814 
BOS 
804 
881 


Average    Total  f< 
daily 


gain.       Grain.        Milk. 


Pounds.    /'<>",,</>.    Pound*. 
2,046 


L86 
L30 
L80 

1.4H 
1.40 
L80 


.v..  i 
187 


8,808 

517  4.ti.V4 

481 


Grain  l 

Milk:( 
Grain  1 

Milk  6 
(irain  I 
Milk  8 
Grain  l 
Milk  it 
(train  1 
Milk  12 

Milks 


Ration. 


per  LOO 
pounds 


Grain.       Milk. 


NO 
L60 
160 
140 


/'.<(',,  (Is. 

1,160 
1,220 
1,410 
1,640 
1.220 


-:  of 
per     Profii  per 
ed.     lOOpounda    group.  '■ 
gain. 


Dollars. 
12.46 

14,86 

13.64 

15.65 

11.  19 


Dollars. 

4.4(1 

5.M 
5.  l" 
5.10 


Dollars. 

7.68 


4.18 

4.77 
3.38 


a  The  grain  to  this  lot  was  corn  meal  2  parts,  soy-bean  meal  l  i>art     That  to  all  the  other  lota 
waa  corn  meal  2  parte,  wheal  meal  l  part. 

due  of  manure  and  cost  <>f  can-  not  considered. 


THE    HOG    INDUS]  KV. 


141 


The  most  economical  ration  is  seen  to  be  one  in  which  the  propor- 
tion of  grain  to  skim  milk  was  as  1  to  •'!.  Beyond  a  certain  point,  it 
was  fonnd  to  be  expensive  to  give  the  pigs  a  Large  amount  of  skim 
milk.     However,  all  the  lots  receiving  the  dairy  ration   made  good 

gains;  the  only  one  of  the  two  years'  tests  which  made  an  extremely 
poor  showing  was  that  on  corn  meal  alone. 

Shim  milk  compared  with  nitrogenous  concentrates. — In  order  to 
compare  the  value  of  skim  milk  as  a  balance  with  that  of  a  mixture 
of  gluten  and  linseed  meals  Patterson a  fed  two  lots  of  pigs  of  0  each 
at  the  Maryland  Station.  Lot  I  received  a  ration  as  follows:  Hominy 
chop,  300  pounds;  ground  corn  fodder  (new  corn  product),  100  pounds; 
skim  milk,  2,100  pounds.  Lot  II  received :  Hominy  chop,  300  pounds; 
ground  corn  fodder,  100  pounds;  King  gluten  meal,  100  pounds;  and 
linseed  meal,  200  pounds.  The  grain  was  fed  as  a  slop.  Results  were 
as  follows : 

Skim  milk  compared  with  nitrogenous  concentrates. 


Average 
weight 
at  begin- 
ning. 

Average 
gain. 

Num- 
ber of 
days 
fed. 

Average 
daily 
gain. 

Feed  eaten  per  100 
pounds  gain. 

Nutri- 

Ration. 

Grain 

and 

fodder. 

Milk. 

tive 
ratio. 

Grain,  fodder ,  and  milk 

Pounds. 
66 
57 

Pounds. 
187 
136 

121 
121 

Pounds. 
1.54 
1.12 

Pounds. 
300 

407 

Pounds. 

1,272 

1:3.52 
1 : 3. 61 

This  experiment  seems  to  bear  out  the  contention  that  skim  milk 
has  more  value  as  a  feed  than  is  indicated  by  the  digestible  nutrients 
it  contains.  The  use  of  milk  effected  a  saving  of  practically  25  per 
cent  of  grain  in  the  feed  required  for  100  pounds  of  gain.  The  rations 
fed  were  identical  in  nutritive  ratio,  and  they  were  made  up  of  the 
same  feeds,  except  that  one  was  balanced  with  skim  milk  and  the 


other  with  gluten  and  linseed  meals. 


The  great  difference  between  the 


feeding  values  of  the  two  rations  must  be  ascribed  to  the  effect  of  skim 
milk  on  the  digestive  system,  and  it  would  seem  that  a  ration  may  be 
balanced  in  other  ways  than  by  the  addition  of  certain  proportions 
of  nutrients  with  certain  fuel  values — a  "balanced  ration"  being 
regarded  as  the  one  that  gives  the  best  results  when  fed  for  a  certain 
purpose. 

A  comparison  of  skim  milk  and  green  clover  in  a  pig's  ration. — At 
the  Maryland  Station,  Patterson, a  fed  Uvo  lots  of  Duroc  Jersey  and 
Berkshire  grades  of  6  pigs  each  on  rations,  one  of  which  was  balanced 
with  skim  milk  and  the  other  included  cut  green  clover  instead  of 
milk.  The  grain  was  corn-and-cob  meal,  8  parts,  and  1  part  each,  of 
gluten  meal  and  linseed  meal.     The  clover  was  given  only  in  such 


«  Bui.  No.  63. 


1  12 


BUBEAU    OF    ANIMAL    [NDUSTEY. 


amount  a>  the  pigs  would  eat.     It  was  not  possible  to  get  them  to  eat 
enough  to  balance  1 1 1  *  *  ration  completely.     The  feeding  period  Is 
one  hundred  and  sixty-five  dai  s. 


Skim  milk  compared  with  green  clover  for  pigs. 


weight 

ginning. 

gain. 

daily 
gain. 

Feed  fa-               I  pcmndt 

Lble  dry 

ixjunds 

Xutri- 

Ration. 

Grain. 

Milk. 

( 'lov.-r. 

ratio. 

Grain  and  skim  milk 

Pound*. 

Pound*. 
OB.  80 

Pounds. 

l  .80 
.80 

/'..///.</>. 

1.47H 

Pounds, 
«06 

1:4 

(Jrain  ami  cloT6T 

This  experiment  does  Qot  show  profitable  results  from  the  feeding 
of  green  clover  as  compared  with  skim  milk.  The  returns  for  the 
green  clover  arc  not  at  all  satisfactory,  very  much  less  so  than  the 
results  of  other  tests  thai  have  been  made. 

■>,  meal  and  a  mixtwn  of  corn  meal  and  middlings  in  a  shim-milk 
ration. — Clinton"  reports  the  results  of  four  years' experimenting  at  the 
Cornel]  University  Experiment  station  to  study  the  value  of  certain 
proportions  of  skim  milk  to  grain  in  the  ration  and  the  relative  value 
of  corn  meal  and  a  mixture  of  coin  meal  and  wheat  middlings  in  such 
a  ration.  In  two  experiments  the  best  results  were  obtained  when 
the  rat  Los  of  main  to  milk  were  as  L:3  and  1:2.5;  in  the  other  two  the 
best  results  were  with  a  ration  in  which  the  ratios  <>t'  grain  to  milk 
were  as  L:6.7  ami  1:6*2.  There  were  L33  hogs  fed  in  these  tests. 
The  following  table  has  been  compiled  from  the  results,  and  shows 
the- feed  required  for  LOO  pounds  gain  tor  the  two  feeds: 

Econon  y  of : slim-mill-  feeding. 


Ration. 

Xum- 

Num- 
ber of 

i'»i  pounds  - 

( '"in  unal  ami  milk 

17 
12 

ffl 

Pound*. 

Pounds, 

l.i  Hf, 

"Thr  proportion  oft]  rai  4:1  in  three  testa.    In  tin-  fourth  it  was  not  stated. 

drain  values  of  shim  milh. — The  following  figures  show  the  grain 
values  of  skim  milk  as  obtained  under  various  methods  of  feeding  at 
Ottawa. b    The  results  are  combined  in  the  following  table: 


«  Bill.  No.  199. 


''Bui.  No.  88,  Central  Experimental  Farm. 


THE     BOG     INM'STKY. 


1  i:>> 


drain  values  of  skim  milk. 


Number  of  pigs. 

Ski  in  milk 

consumed 

per  head 

daily. 

Milk 

valueoflOO 

pounds 

grain. 

Kind  of  grain. 

<  iniin 

value  of  100 

pounds 

milk. 

4 . 

Pounds. 

2 

3 

a 

3 

5.4 
5.41 
13.6 
15.  7 
15.7 
17.1 
17.14 
23.7 
32.41 

Pounds. 
L83 

L88 
354 
323 

538 
534 

791 
699 
734 
882 
882 
776 
834 

('urn 

do 

I '<nt  it  (Is. 

54. 64 

7 

54.64 

8 

31 

Mixed  grain 

do 

30.98 

4 

18.69 

4. 

.do 

18. 72 

4 

Frosted  wheat. . . 

Mixed  grain 

.do.... 

12.64 

5 

14.30 

5. 

13.62 

2 

do 

11.33 

2 

.do 

11.33 

2 

do 

12.88 

4... 

...do 

11.99 

Average 

604 

16.55 

The  average  of  results  obtained  by  Danish  experimenters  is  a  value 
of  about  GOO  pounds  of  milk  for  100  pounds  of  grain,  but  the  greater 
amount  of  work  of  this  nature  in  America  has  shown  a  higher  value 
for  skim  milk.  The  average  of  nineteen  trials  in  Wisconsin  with 
proportions  of  milk  ranging  from  1  to  0  pounds  for  each  pound  of 
grain  fed,  with  hogs  of  all  ages,  was  that  475  pounds  of  skim  milk 
were  equal  to  100  pounds  of  meal.a  In  Utah  b  Linfield  found  the  value 
of  100  pounds  of  milk  in  terms  of  grain  (that  is,  the  amount  of  grain 
replaced  by  100  pounds  of  milk)  to  be  23.2  and  26.3  pounds,  respect- 
ively, in  two  series  of  experiments.  Grisdale c  values  milk  at  from 
one-fifth  to  one-sixth  as  much  as  mixed  grain.  In  all  experiments 
the  large  return  where  the  proportion  of  milk  to  grain  is  small  is  par- 
ticularly noteworthy.  Milk  should  never  be  given  to  pigs  in  unlimited 
amounts  except  while  with  the  sow,  or  immediately  after  weaning,  up 
to  the  weights  of  75  or  100  pounds.  At  this  earty  age,  much  grain 
will  disarrange  the  digestion  and  best  results  can  be  expected  from  a 
ration  that  is  largely  milk. 

Gram  required  for  100  pounds  gain  when  feeding  skim  milk  and 
grain  as  compared  with  grain  alone  and  milk  alone. — The  following 
table  is  adapted  from  one  compiled  by  Linfield d  from  the  results  of 
various  stations  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  cost  in  grain  of  feed- 
ing rations  of  grain  and  skim  milk,  grain  alone,  and  skim  milk  alone. 


'''Henry:  Feeds  and  Feeding,  p.  572. 

&  Bui.  No.  57. 

cBul.  No.  33,  Central  Experimental  Farm. 

tf  Bui.  No.  57,  Utah  Expt.  Sta. 


1 11 


BUREAU    OF    animal    [NDU8TB1 
r,  i  d  /»  r  too  pounds  gain. 


Station. 

Dry  matter  tor  100  pounds 
gain. 

drain 

andinilk 

Grain 

alone. 

Milk 

alone. 

Wisconsin                            

BIS 

an 
m 
m 

161 

676 

8M 

m 

I'ound.s. 

ISO 

( Solorado                              

X< -w  Hampshire -• 

Utah' J 

a  The  results  In  New  Hampshire  and  t  he  seoond  line  of  Utah  results  show  estimated  digestible 
dry  matter. 

These  figures  show  what  can  be  regarded  as  representative  values 
of  these  three  methods  of  feeding,  and  emphatically  demonstrate  the 
economy  of  the  grain-and-milk  combination.     Linfield  calls  attention 

to  the  fact  thai  none  of  the  pigs  fed  milk  alone  attained  a  weight  of 
o\  er  loo  pounds,  whereas  some  of  those  in  the  other  columns  reached 
nearly  300  pounds.  It  does  not  always  mean  profitable  feeding  for  a 
hog  to  require  a  small  amount  of  feed  to  make  a  certain  gain. 

VoLva  of  miCk  at  cm-ions  prices  for  (/rain.  —  Using  as  a  basis  the 
results  obtained  in  the  investigations  already  mentioned,  Linfield0 
makes  the  following  estimates  of  the  value  of  skim  milk  as  a  supple- 
mentary feed  in  a  ration  at  various  prices  for  grain: 

Value  of  skim  milk  for  pigs. 


Num- 

(irain 
equal  to 

LOO 

pound's 

skim 

milk. 

Value  of  skim  milk  per  100  pounds  when  grain  is  worth,  per 
100  pounds— 

Ration. 

ber  of 
pigs. 

40  cents. 

50  cents. 

80  cents. 

70  cents. 

80  cents. 

90  cents. 

%h 

Milk  and  grain. 
Milk 

87 

11 

I'll  II  it  lis. 

14.2 

(  '<  n  ts. 

0.8 
5.7 

11.:, 
7.1 

Cents. 
L8.9 

16.2 

y.9 

16.6 

11.4 

80.8 

(  '-  ,1  ts. 

86.  2 

14.2 

A  similar  study  was  made  by  Lindsey*  and  others  from  the  results 

al  the  Hatch  Slat  ion.  except  that  the  figures  do  not  include  the  results 
Of    feeding  (.a    milk    alone.      The    averages  of   their  experiments  are 

given  in  the  following  table.  "Starchy  feeds'1  refer  to  such  substi- 
tutes for  corn  meal  as  hominy  meal,  cerealine  U'i'd,  rye  meal,  wheat 
meal,  etc. ;  "o1  her  grains  "  are  I  he  nit  rogenous  feeds,  such  aa  wheal 
bran,  gluten  meal,  linseed  meal,  etc.: 


"Bui.  No.  57,  Utah  Expt,  Bta.         &  Eleventh  An.  Rpt,  Hatch  Exjrt.  sta. 


THE    Hoc    CNDU8TBY. 
Value  of  skim  milk  for  pigs. 


145 


(1ost  of  feed 


With  corn  meal  and  other  starchy 
feeds  at  §15  per  ton,  "other 
grains"  at  $17.50  per  ton 

With  eornmeal  and  other  si  archy 
feeds  at  {17.60  per  ton,  'other 
grains*'  at  $20  per  ton 

With  corn  meal  and  other  starchy 
feeds  at  $20  per  tun,  ''other 
grains  "  at  $22.50  per  ton 


With  dressed  pork  at  With  dressed  pork  at 

6  cents  per  lb.,  6  cents  per  H>., 

skim  milk  is  worth     skim  milk  is  worth— 


Per  Per  LOO 

quart.        pounds. 


Cent. 


0.50 


( 'ents. 


23.07 


80.  < 


18. 08 


Per  Per  LOO 

quart.       pounds. 


Cent. 


0.67 


.61 


.56 


( 'ents. 


30. 73 


28.14 


25.  *2 


With  dressed  pork  at 

is  per  li».. 
skim  milk  is  worth 


Per 
quarl 


Cent. 


0.83 


.78 


Per  LOO 
pounds. 


Cents. 


38. 10 


35. 86 


35. 70 


Cost  of  feed  when  feeding  skim  milk. — The  following  shows  the  cost 
of  feed  per  100  pounds  of  live  and  dressed  weight  produced  as  esti- 
mated from  the  Massachusetts a  experiments  at  various  prices  for 
grain  and  milk  : 

Cost  of  feed  per  100  pounds  of  growth  produced. 


Cost  of  f  eed- 


With  corn  meal  at  $15  per  ton,  "  other  grains  "  at  $17.50  per  ton,  and  milk  at 

i  cent  per  quart 

With  corn  meal  at  $15  per  ton,  "  other  grains  "  at  $17.50  per  ton,  and  milk  at 

i  cent  per  quart _. 

With  corn  meal  at  $17.50  per  ton,  "  other  grains "  at  $20  per  ton,  and  milk  at 

i  cent  per  quart  .  _ 

With  corn  meal  at  $17.50  per  ton,  "other  grains "  at  $20  per  ton,  and  milk  at 

i  cent  per  quart 

With  corn  meal  at  $20  per  ton,  ''other  grains'1  at  $22.50  per  ton,  and  milk  at 

cent  per  quart. 

With  corn  meal  at  $20  per  ton,  "  other  grains  "  at  $22.50  per  ton,  and  milk  at 

i  cent  per  quart 


Cost  per 

100 
pounds 

live 
weight. 


Dollars. 
2.78 

4.00 

3.04 

4.25 

3.63 

i.  51 


Cost  per 

100 
pounds 
dressed 
weight. 


Dolla  rs. 

3.47 

4.99 
3.79 
5.31 
4.53 
5.63 


The  labor  cost  of  feeding. — In  experiments  in  pork  production 
investigators  almost  invariably  disregard  the  expense  of  care  and 
labor,  estimating  that  this  will  be  covered  b}^  the  value  of  the  manure 
made  and  the  saving  in  expense  of  marketing  crops.     This  is  always 

a Eleventh  An.  Rpt.,  Hatch  Expt.  Sta. 
8396— No.  47—04 10 


1  46  BUREAU    OF    animal    IMH  81  B1  . 

more  or  Less  of  an  obstacle  in  applying  tin*  results  of  experiments  to 
actual  farming  conditions,  for  the  manure  is  not  always  carefully 
Baved  <>n  the  farm.  Linfield,*  of  the  [Jtah  Station,  Btudied  the  tabor 
cost  as  shown  bj  the  experience  of  some  of  the  creameries  in  his  State 
that  were  feeding  large  numbers  of  hogs,  and  states  the  result  of  his 
inquiries  as  follow  b: 

One  creamery  reports  thai  one  man  would  feed  1,000  hogs,  clean  all  the  pem 
each  day,  and  draw  the  ed  from  the  mill  2  miles  distant.    Another  says 

that  one  man  does  all  the  work  of  feeding  and  cleaning  ont  U  I  h«..ur- 

in  five  hours  each  day.    The  wages  paid  in  each  case  was  about  $1  per  day. 

At  both  creameries  the  hogs  are  purchased  when  weighing  from  50  t«»  LOO  pounds 
each,  though  some  few  are  heavier.  The  hogs  are  crowded  from  the  start,  and  at 
most  not  more  than  100  days  are  required  to  fit  the  hogs  for  market,  and  in  this 
time  100  t«>  L25  pounds  have  hern  added  to  the  live  weight  of  each  hog. 

By  putting  all  of  the  above  figures  together  we  find  that  it  costs  five  hours1 
lal»or  or  50  cents  to  look  after  500  hogs  for  one  day,  or  $50  to  look  after  500  hogs 
for  one  hundred  days.  This  is  10  cents  for  l  h'-ur  lor  on.-  hundred  days,  or  for  LOO 
pounds  gain,  which  gives  one-tenth  of  a  cent  as  the  labor  cost  of  prodoc 
pound  of  live  weight  of  hog.  It  is  thus  evident  from  the  results  of  these  practical 
men  that  when  handled  in  large  number-,  as  In  igs  may  be  at  a  creamery,  the  labor 
ie  .i  \'-ry  small  item  in  growing  the  hogs.  If  the  value  of  the  gain  was  reckoned 
at  4  cents  per  pound  the  labor  cost  of  producing  the  pork  was  but  -';  per  cent  of 
its  Belling  price. 

Lesl  these  results  be  misleading,  Linfield  calls  attention  to  the  fact 

that  the  conditions  were  almosl    ideal    for  the  greatest   economy,  the 

were  "shorl  fed,"  and  all  feeding  appliances  ami  pens  were  so 

arranged  as  to  have  in  view  the  greatest  possible  saving  of  labor.     At 

another  creamery,  where  the  hogs  were  raided  on  the  place  ami  fed 
until  they  were  lilt  ecu  months  old  and  the  accommodations  were  not  so 
good,  the  cost  reported  was  as  large  tor  300  hogs  as  t lie  others  reported 
for  1,000  head.  It  is  pointed  out  that,  on  the  average  farm,  where  the 
number  of  animals  is  much  smaller,  and  milk  must  usually  be  hauled 
bach  to  the  farm,  the  labor  cost  will  be  very  much  greater. 

Skim-milk  rations  for  growing  pigs. — The  Hatch  station'  recom- 
mends the  following  rations  for  pigs  weighing  from  20  to  L80  pounds 
when  the  feeder  has  an  unlimited  supply  of  skim  milk  at  hand: 

Hations  for  growing  pigs. 


Weight  <»f  pigs. 


Rations. 


80  to  60  pounds  Bounces  of  corn  meal  to  each  quart  of  milk. 

00  t<>  LOO  pottndfl »'» ounces  of  corn  meal  to  each  quart  of  milk. 

L80  pounds.  '  corn  meal  to  each  quart  of  milk. 


"Bui  ^  Eleventh  An.  Rpt. 


The  follow-in; 
limited  amount 


THK    HOG     INIM'STKY.  147 

rations   may  be    used    where   tlnk   milk   supply    is    in 
Ra  I  ions  for  growing  pigs, 


Weight  <>f  pigs. 


Rations. 


20  to  180  pounds :>  ounces  of  corn  meal,  wheat,  rye  or  hominy  meals  to  each  quart  of  milk, 

and  then  gradually  increase  meal  to  satisfy  appetites. 
80  to 60 pounds         ...    Milk  at  disposal, plus  mixture  of  one-third  corn  meal,  one-third  wheat 

bran,  and  one-third  gluten  meal  to  satisfy  appetites. 
60  to  10!)  pounds Milk  ;it  disposal,  plus  mixture  of  one-half  corn  meal,  one-fourth  wheat 

bran,  and  one-fourth  gluten  meal  to  satisfy  appetites. 
100  to  180  pounds Milk  at  disposal,  plus  mixture  of  two-thirds  corn  meal,  one-sixth  wheat 

bran,  and  one-sixth  gluten  meal  to  satisfy  appetites. 
20  to  00  pounds 3  ounces  of  corn  meal  to  each  quart  of  milk,  and  4  ounces  of  gluten  feed 

as  a  substitute  for  quart  of  milk. 
60  to  100  pounds Milk  at  disposal,  and  mixture  of  one-half  corn  meal  and  one-half  gluten 

feed  to  satisfy  appetites. 
100  to  180  pounds Milk  at    disposal,  and  mixture  of  two-thirds  corn  meal  and  one-third 

gluten  feed  to  satisfy  appetites. 


Sweet  compared  with  sour  whey. — At  the  Ontario  Agricultural  Col- 
lege, Daya  conducted  five  experiments  to  compare  the  feeding  values 
of  sweet  and  sour  whey.  Each  experiment  was  preceded  by  a  pre- 
liminary period  of  from  one  to  two  weeks  and  the  experiments  proper 
varied  in  duration  from  twenty-nine  to  sixty-four  days.  In  each  one 
as  a  check  a  group  of  pigs  was  fed  on  meal  only  mixed  with  water. 
The  group  receiving  whejT  had  it  mixed  with  the  grain,  and  both  lots 
received  the  same  quantity  of  whey,  which  was  about  2  pounds  to 
each  pound  of  meal.  All  lots  had  as  much  feed  as  they  would  eat 
readily.  The  sour  whey  fed  in  1897  "was  kept  in  a  tank  which  had 
not  been  cleaned  since  early  in  the  summer  of  1896."  The  meal  was 
a  mixture  of  equal  parts  of  pease,  barley,  and  oats. 

The  following  table  shows  the  amount  of  grain  saved  bjr  feeding 
whey  for  each  experiment  and  for  the  average: 

Grain  saved  by  feeding  sweet  and  sour  whey. 


Experiment. 

Amount 
of  meal 
saved  by 
100  pounds 
of  sweet 
whey. 

Amount  of 

meal 

saved  by 

lOOpounds 

or  sour 

whey. 

No.  1  (1896) 

Pounds. 
13.32 

Pounds. 
13.61 

No.  2(1896) 

13.32 

13.81 

No.  3(1897) ■ 

14. 88 

7  87 

No.  4  (1897) 

.  No  test. 

10.07 

No.  5  (1897) 

6  08 

9  34 

Average 

11  90 

10.94 

1 

«An.  Rpts.,  1896  and  1897. 


148 


BUREAl      OF     \.M\I\I.    [NDUSTEY, 


\\ 'iii-v  feeding  la  often  attended  with  difficulty,  as  ii  caihfs  a  stiff- 
ening of  the  joints  and  serious  lameness.  This  condition  occurred 
in  the  experiments  of  L896;  and  in  1897  the  group  fed  sweet  whey  in 
experiment  No.  L  was  so  seriously  checked  by  this  trouble  that  they 
were  Left  out  of  the  comparison.  Day  calls  particular  attention  1<>  the 
fact  thai  the  lots  receiving  sour  whey  were  not  at  all  affected. 

[f  experiment  No.  I  is  omitted  in  the  preceding  table,  the  average 
amount  of  meal  saved  by  LOO  pounds  of  sour  whey  is  L1.15  pounds. 
The  \  alue  of  whey  in  pork  feeding  is,  according  t<>  these  figures,  about 
half  that  of  skim  milk. 

The  following  shows  the  results  of  six  analyses  of  whey  made  dur- 
ing these  experiments  by  the  chemical  department  of  the  Ontario 
Agricull ui-al  College: 

(  'ninpnsitimi  of  U'Ju  //. 


whey. 

0.920 

■ 

Sugar. 

m 

Day  suggests  that  the  higher  percentage  of  nitrogenous  substances 
in  the  sour  whey  was  perhaps  due  to  evaporation  of  the  original 
samples. 

PASTURE  AND  PASTURE  SUBSTITUTES. 


PASTURE. 

Vahu    of  pastun    with  a  grain   ration, — The   Utah   Station0   has 
devoted  considerable  study  to  the  effect  and  value  of  pasture  for  pigs 

that  are  on  a  grain  ration.  The  pastures  used  were  made  up  of 
mixed  grasses  and  alfalfa.  The  Utah  problem  in  pork  production  is 
defined  as  the  use  of  "a  minimum  amount  of  grain  and  a  maximum 
amount  of  alfalfa,  milk,  and  whey,  or  oilier  cheap  foods."  The  fol- 
lowing table  shows  the  results  of  four  seasons"  st  udy  of  I  his  problem, 
where  rations  <>f  grain  and  pasture  and  grain  alone  were  compared: 

VaXui  of  pasture  with  grain. 


Ration. 

Total 
Ihuiy.          *■**■ 

daily 
gain. 

eaten 
per  i<»> 
pounds 
gain. 

Pounds.    Pounds. 

■:\: 

Pounds. 

1.21" 

I'm: 

(train   

480 

These  results  Btrongly  favor  the  ase  of  pasture  when  feeding  i > i lt^ 
under  conditions  similar  to  those  that  exist  in  rtah.  In  every  respect 
the  pigs  on  pasture  show  better  results  than  those  that  had  no  pas- 
ture; the  total  gain  per  head  averaged  33  per  cent  greater  for  the 


"Bui.  N 


THE     HOC     IN'DI'STKV. 


14<) 


pigs  on  pasture  than  for  those  <>n  grain  alone;  the  average  daily  gains 
were  nearly  29  per  cent  greater,  and  there  was  a  saving  of  more  than 
lOpereenl  in  t.he  feed  per  LOO  pounds  gain  for  the  pigs  on  pasture. 

I'alin  of  a  grain  ration  with  pasture. — The  converse  of  the  Utah 
experiments  is  shown  by  two  experiments  by  Morrow  and  Bonea  in 
Oklahoma. 

Two  lots  of  -4  pigs  each  were  placed  in  half-acre  alfalfa  Lots,  one 
being  given  a  full  feed  of  grain  and  the  other  receiving  none.  Tn 
eight  weeks  the  lot  without  grain  had  gained  only  68  pounds,  or  17 
pounds  each,  and  those  having  grain  gained  324  pounds,  or  81  pounds 
each. 

A  sow  with  a  litter  of  o  pigs  was  in  the  same  lot  with  the  grain-fed 
pigs.  The  sow  gained  61  pounds  in  thirty- five  days,  when  she  was 
removed.  Her  5  pigs  made  a  total  gain  of  146  pounds  in  the  first  five 
weeks  and  96  pounds  during  the  succeeding  period  of  three  weeks. 
The  grain  fed  these  pigs  amounted  to  only  221  pounds  per  100  pounds 
gain. 

Pasture  in  addition  to  dairy  by-products. — Four  tests  were  made  in 
Utah6  to  determine  the  value  of  pasturing  pigs  that  are  receiving  a 
ration  of  grain,  milk,  and  whey.  One  test  was  made  with  pasturing 
pigs  that  were  receiving  milk  and  whey,  but  no  grain.  The  ratio  of 
milk  to  grain  by  weight  was  5 : 1  at  the  start  and  3 : 1  at  the  close  in  the 
second  and  third  tests.  In  the  fourth  test  the  grain  was  limited  to 
one-half  the  quantity  fed  the  other  lots,  but  all  the  milk  and  whey 
was  given  that  the  pigs  would  take. 

The  pigs  that  received  the  grain  and  dairy  by-product  ration  were 
fed  in  pens. 

The  following  table  shows  the  results  for  each  test  and  the  average 

of  all: 

Value  of  pasture  with  dairy  by-products. 


Ration. 


Total 
gain. 


Average 
daily- 
gain. 


Feed  eaten  daily. 


Milk.        Grain. 


Feed  per  100  pounds 
gain. 


Milk.        Grain. 


Milko  and  pasture. 

Milk 

Milk,  grain,  and  pasture 

Milk  and  grain _ 

Milk,  grain,  and  pasture. 

Milk  and  grain 

Milk,  grain,  and  pasture  . 
Milk  and  grain 


Pounds. 
218 
202 
350 
366 
324 
351 


Pounds. 
0.69 
.64 
1.11 
1.16 
1.25 
1.35 
1.05 
1.10 


Pounds. 
21.00 
23.54 
9.56 
10.71 
10. 11 
11.52 
15.65 
18.12 


Pounds. 


3.34 
3.13 
3.38 
3.24 

1.09 
1.62 


Pounds. 

3,034 

3,672 

859 

921 

805 

879 

1, 479 

1,837 


Pounds. 


300 


238 
139 
147 


Average  with  pasture 

Average  without  pasture 


291 
301 


1.03 
1.06 


2.60 


1,544  j 
1,827  | 


236 
218 


a  By  '•  milk  "  is  meant  both  milk  and  whey. 

The  results  of  the  first  test  bear  out  previous   experience  with 
attempts  to  make  pork  on  pasture  without  grain,  although  the  gains 


« An.  Rpt.  1898-99,  Oklahoma  Expt.  Sta.        &Bul.  No.  70,  Utah  Expt.  Sta. 


L50 


i:i  i:i-  \r    OP    animal    [NDU8TRY. 


given  are  fairly  good  and  better  than  might  be  expected  on  a  pasture 
containing  only  a  small  amonnl  of  alfalfa.  The  addition  of  Bkim 
milk  did  n<>i  prove  beneficial  in  anyway.  In  the  experiments  where 
grain  \\  as  fed  no  advantage  accrued  i  hrough  (he  use  <>f  past  are,  except 
thai  the  pasture  lots  consumed  nearly  300  pounds  less  milk  per  i(»" 
pounds  gain  than  those  in  pens.  At  L5  cents  per  LOO  pounds,  this 
means  a  difference  of  r>  cents  per  LOO  pounds  of  pork  made  The 
difference  in  grain  fed  was  nearly  20  pounds  per  LOO  pounds  of  pork 

made  in  favor  of  1  he  pen-fed  Lots. 

These  results  are  <*\  idence  in  support  of  the  idea  that  the  effect  of 
dairy  by-products  and  succulent  feed  In  the  ration  is  similar,  and  that 
to  get  the  greatest  amount  of  gain  at  tin-  Least  expenditure  of  feed 
only  one  of  the  supplementary  feeds  is  necessary;  that  tin*  addition  of 

pasture   boa  ration  which   already  contains  a  Large  amonnl    of  dairy 

by-products  is  superfluous;  and  that  the  only  advantage  to  be  gained 

by  such  a  method  of  feeding  is  the  exercise  obtained  l>y  the  pig 

past  lire. 

r>  a  com/pan  d  with  pastun  fet  ding. — At  t  he  Utah  Stat  ion,  Linfield  " 
fed  six  Lots  of  3  pigs  each,  in  two  tests,  to  study  the  value  <>f  rations 
composed  of  grain  and  milk,  grain  alone,  and  milk  alone.  Both  teste 
were  conducted  during  the  summer  and  fall  of  the  same  year.  In 
one  icst  the  pigs  had  the  run  of  a  pasture  <>r  mixed  grasses  in  which 
was  a  large  amount  of  alfalfa.  The  following  table  shows  a  compari- 
son between  pen  and  pasture  feeding: 

Pen  compared  with  pasture  feeding. 


Method  of  feeding. 


Estimate] 
Dry  mat-     digestible     T)rvmat 
A  vera-'.-    terperlOO    ■ 
daily  gain,     pounds 


.tram. 


L"t>  ted  <>ii  milk: 

on  pasture 

In  pen        

Lot--  fed  on  milk  and  grain: 

t  >n  pasture       

In  pen 

Lota  ted  <>n  grain: 

On  pasture       

In  pen        


Pounds. 

0.7 

.66 

1.1:.' 

1.17 

.81 

■■"" 

Pounds. 
810 


dry  mat 
tar  per  l'«i 

pounds 
pain. 


Pounds. 

m 
an 


834 


tar  eaten 

per  day. 


Pounds. 

l.T'.t 


i  K 


The  only  pigs  thai  showed  better  results  in  pens  than  on  pasture 
were  those  on  grain  and  milk.  Those  receiving  grain  alone  on  pas- 
ture gave  very  much  Larger  gains,  required  Less  feed  per  LOO  pounds 
gain,  and  ate  more  feed  than  those  receiving  grain  alone  in  pens. 
Linfield  suggests  that  i  ither  bhe  exercise  or  the  feed  obtained  by  the 
run  on  pasture  gave  these  pigs  greater  appetite  ami  enabled  them  to 
digest  a  greater  amount    of   iced   daily.     The  fact   that   neither  of 


"  r.ul.  N« 


TIIK    IIO(J     INDl'STHY. 


151 


the  other  lots  Bhowed  a  marked  advantage  from  pasture  might  be 
explained  by  the  skim  milk  in  the  ration.  Ii  isperhapsa  safe  propo- 
sition that  in  feeding  pigs  bho  besl  results  will  followthe  use  of  dairy 
by-products,  roots,  or  pasture,  in  connection  with  grain,  but  thai  it 
is  superfluous  to  combine  two  of  these  supplementary  feeds,  as  their 
action  on  the  digestive  system  seems  to  be  similar.  When  attempts 
are  being  made  to  prevent  disease,  however,  the  advantage  of  ample 
exercise  must  not  be  overlooked. 

Corn  compared  with  wheat  on  alfalfa  pasture. — At  the  Nebraska 
Station/'  Burnett  and  Smith  placed  three  lots  of  6  pigs  each  on  alfalfa 
pasture  lots  one-fourth  acre  in  area.  The  pigs  were  Tamworth- 
Duroc  Jersey  crossbreds.  Lot  I  was  fed  ground  corn;  Lot  II,  a  ration 
composed  of  95  per  cent  ground  corn  and  o  per  cent  dried  blood,  and 
Lot  III  received  ground  wheat.  In  addition  to  the  pasture,  all  the 
pigs  had  one  week  on  rape.  The  experiment  lasted  forty-two  days. 
The  results  follow : 

Com  compared  with  wheat  on  alfatf  a  pasture. 


■N-iiTTi     Average    Avpvasre    Aver-     Aver"     ^ae?"      Feed        Cost 
SSt    I?®*    ^3£     MP       £!fy  amfuV'-rinO'perlO 

— * I       d-1  Ue~  a  4-  olnm  era  in  Uctliy  faDH 


Ration. 


ties        at  h-e' 
ginning 


Average    Aver-     AJ£m       agT  \J*%  LSlOO  Proflt 


Ground  corn.. 

Ground  corn  95  per  cent. 
Dried  blood  5  per  cent  . . 
Ground  wheat 


Lbs. 
146 

145 

147 


Lbs. 


223  77 
227  82 
229     82 


Lbs.        Lbs.        Lbs. 
77    1.22    308 


1.30 
1.30 


308 


Lbs. 

400 

376 
376 


Dolls. 
4.00 

4.04 

4.13 


Dolls. 
3.77 

3.88 

3.83 


a  Expense  of  pasture  and  labor  considered. 

The  cost  of  feed  in  this  experiment  was,  for  corn,  $1  per  hundred- 
weight; wheat,  81.10  per  hundredweight,  and  dried  blood,  $2.50  per 
hundredweight.  The  results  are  so  close  together  that  a  slight 
change  in  the  prices  of  feed  would  change  the  relative  rank  of  these 
rations.  The  value  of  pasture  is  apparent  when  these  results  are 
compared  with  those  of  the  experiment  at  this  station  with  wheat  and 
other  grains.     (See  p.  98.) 

Maintaining  pigs  on  pasture  alone. — At  the  Utah  Station  Foster 
and  Merrill6  conducted  two  tests  to  observe  the  effect  of  maintaining 
pigs  on  pasture  alone. 

According  to  Henry/  no  station  has  shown  that  pigs  can  be  success- 
fulty  maintained  on  pasture  alone  if  the  test  reported  from  the  Utah 
Station  is  excepted.  The  further  investigations  at  this  station  on  this 
line  are  therefore  of  much  interest. 

In  1898  a  comparison  was  made  of  mixed  pasture  and  alfalfa  pas- 
ture. The  pigs  were  about  five  months  old  at  the  beginning  of  the  test, 
had  been  fed  grain  and  milk,  and  were  in  a  very  thrifty  condition. 
Both  lots  had  access  to  running  water. 


a  Bui.  No.  11 


&Bul.  No.  70.  c  Feeds  and  Feeding,  pp.  578,  579. 


1.VJ 


1:1  BEAU    OJE     ANIMAL    INDUSTRY, 


The  experiment  in  L899  vras  in  some  ways  a  continuation  of  that  of 

Two  Lots  of  pigs  were  used;  both  were  on  alfalfa  pasture,  but 

they  differed  in  age.     Lot  I  consisted  of  3  pigs  about  four  months  old, 

.•Hid  Lot  1 1  of  3  pigs  about  seven  mont  lis  old  and  nearly  i  wioe  as  heavy 
as  those  iii  Lot  I.  The  following  table  gives  the  results  of  the  experi- 
ments: 

Pig*  on  pcutun  without  grain  or  mill:. 


L89& 

Lol    I.  Mixed  pasture 
Lot  1 1    Alfalfa  pasture. 


Loi    I.  Alfalfa  pasture 
Lol  II.  Alfalfa  pasture 


KTr.™ 

"   at   b 


pigs. 


ning. 


Pound*. 
261 


166 


Total 

U.iu'llt 

at  close 


Pound*. 

m 

B80 


828 


Pound*. 
70 


Num- 
ber of 


106 


mi 


Pound. 
0.  L89 
.0121 


.  I M 


"Loss. 

These  experiments  do  not  change  one's  opinion  regarding  the  value 
of  pasture  alone  for  pigs.  The  two  lots  gained  in  weight— one  on 
mixed  pasture  and  the  other  on  alfalfa  pasture.  The  effect  of  this 
method  of  feeding  on  the  appearance  of  the  pigs  was  very  marked;  in 
the  L898  test  this  was  particularly  commented  upon.  "The  plump 
rounded  forms  gave  place  to  Large  coarse  frames  and  large  stomachs. 
At  the  end  of  the  experiment  they  looked  very  much  Larger  thanat 
the  beginning,  but  the  scales  failed  to  show  any  gains.  What  is  said 
above  would  also  apply  to  the  mixed  past  are  set ,  only  in  thai  case  the 
eye  was  not  so  badly  dec*  tved — small  gains  were  made." 

In  L899  pigs  that  were  receiving  small  amounts  of  \\'i'(\.  either  milk 
or  grain  in  addition  to  pasture,  were  found  to  have  made  gains  very 
nearly  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  extra  feed  given,  which  Foster 
and  Merrill  regard  as  evidence  that  the  pasture  supplied  enough  feed 
for  maintenance  onlv. 


(.im:i:\    SUBSTITUTES   FOB   PASTURE. 

Pasturing  on  rape.  -At  the  Utah  station  Poster  and  Merrill0 pas- 
tured 6  pigs  on  a  plot  of  rape  that  had  been  seeded  August  LI,  after 
having  been  irrigated  and  plowed.  The  pigs  were  hurdled  in  pens  L6 
feel  square  and  without  shelter  from  rain  or  snow.  They  received 
a  ration  of  l   pound  daily  of  a  mixture  of  equal  parts  of  bran  and 

chopped   wheat. 

At   the  Canada  Centra]   Experimental  Farm,  Grisdale ''  pastured  6 

on  a  plot  three-sixteenths  acre  in  extent  that  had  been  drilled  to 

rape,  the  drills  being  30  inches  apart.     These  pigs  received  a  daily 


Bnl.  n  .  10. 


An.  Bpt.,  L900. 


TIIK    HOG    INDUS'!  1^  . 


1  53 


grain  ration  of  1  pound  per  head  at  the  beginning,  which  was  increased 
to  5  pounds  at  the  close.     At  the  Alabama  Station,  Duggara  hurdled 

pigs,  which  had  been  weaned  three  weeks,  on  rape  drilled  on  sandy 
upland  the  previous  October.  They  received  about  a  half  ration  of 
corn  meal  in  addition. 

The  results  are  as  follows: 


Pasturing  on  rape. 


Where  fed. 

Num- 
ber of 
pigs. 

Total 
weight 
at  begin- 
ning. 

Total 
gain. 

Num- 
ber of 
days 
fed. 

Average 
daily 
gain. 

Grain 
eaten. 

Grain 

p...'    ]IHI 

pounds 
gain. 

Utah 

6 
6 
4 

Pounds. 
296 
358 
130 

Pounds. 

60 

869 

181 

49 

114 

81 

Pounds. 
0.204 
1.27 
.56 

Pounds. 

294 

2,067 

524 

Pounds. 
490 

Canada 

238 

290 

At  the  close  of  the  Alabama  test,  the  pigs  were  placed  on  second- 
growth  rape  for  three  weeks.  They  grazed  one-sixth  acre,  eating  168 
pounds  corn  meal  and  making  a  gain  of  82  pounds,  which  was  an 
average  daily  gain  of  0. 98  pound,  at  a  cost  of  205  pounds  meal  for 
100  pounds  gain.  Assuming  that  500  pounds  of  grain  alone  are 
required  for  100  pounds  gain,  Duggar"  estimates  the  amount  of  the 
pork  produced  per  acre  from  the  first  and  second  growth  rape 
together  at  512  pounds,  worth  at  that  time  $20.48. 

Seven  shoats,  averaging  41  pounds  in  weight,  were  on  rape  at  the 
same  station  for  four  weeks  during  the  late  spring.  The}T  received 
some  corn  meal  in  addition.  During  the  first  two  weeks  the  rape  was 
fed  to  the  pigs  in  the  pens;  during  the  remainder  of  the  time  they 
were  hurdled.  They  ate  318  pounds  of  corn  meal.  The  total  gain  in 
weight  for  the  four  weeks  was  103  pounds,  an  average  daily  gain  of 
0.53  pound,  310  pounds  of  grain  and  4,050  square  feet  of  rape  being 
required  to  produce  100  pounds  of  gain. 

Rape  compared  tvith  clover. — The  Wisconsin  Station6  has  reported 
two  experiments  comparing  rape  and  clover  as  pasturage  for  hogs. 
In  the  first,  20  purebred  or  high-grade  Poland  China  pigs  between  five 
and  six  months  of  age  were  used.  Lot  I  was  hurdled  on  rape,  had 
access  to  water,  and  had  the  run  of  a  blue-grass  lot.  Their  grain  feed 
was  a  mixture  of  2  parts  of  corn  meal  and  1  part  shorts  twice  daily 
as  slop.  Lot  II  was  on  a  10-acre  lot  of  second-growth  clover,  and 
received  the  same  grain  ration  as  Lot  I.  In  the  second  experiment 
the  pigs  used  were  purebred  and  high-grade  Berkshires  and  Poland 
Chinas.  Their  grain  ration  was  the  same  mixture  as  that  used  in 
the  first  experiment,  mixed  into  a  thick  slop.     Lot  I  was  hurdled  on 


«Bul.  No.  122. 


b  Sixteenth  and  Seventeenth  An.  Rpts. 


L54 


i:i   BEAU    OF    ANIMAL    [NDU81  BY. 


rape:  Lot   II  ha«l  the  inn  of  an  8-acre  ftel  l  of  second-growth  clover. 
The  results  were  as  follows: 

Rapt  oompan  d  with  <-h,r,  r. 


Ration. 

N'uui- 
ber  <'t 

Total 

\V.-lV,'llt 

jit  Ix-^in 

ning. 

Total 
gain. 

Num- 
ber of 
days 
fed 

■ 
daily 

3rain 
eaten. 

Oram 
per  100 
pounds 

.  and  rape 

80 

a 

Pounds, 
8,111 

Pounds. 
1,048 

i  .  m 

68 

Pound*. 

1.-7 

• 
1,865 

/'.<-'/,./> 

( train  and  rape 

BBS 

:«.' 

n  and  oloyer 

80 

2,091 
8,  186 

'.Ml 

1 .  486 

63 

66 

> 

i .  a 

1,868 

434 

:u<; 

Average    

880 

These  experiments  give  rape  a  greater  value  for  pigs  than  clover 
pasture.  Rape  lias  an  advantage  of  over  7  per  cent  in  grain  required 
per  100  pounds  of  gain. 

Tlu  influeno  of  rapi  on  grain  eaten. — At  the  Wisconsin  Station 
Carlyle"  fed  two  lots  of  pigs — one  lot  hurdled  on  rape  pasture  and  the 
Other  fed  in  a  roomy  yard  without  any  kind  of  green  feed.  Both  lots 
received  the  same  grain  ration,  which  was  a  mixture  of  equal  parts  of 
corn  meal  and  shorts  made  into  a  slop  immediately  before  feeding, 
and  had  coal  ashes  at  all  times.  The  experiment  began  August  4, 
when  the  rape  was  about  20  inches  high.  The  pigs  used  were  about 
four  months  old  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment,  and  represented 
the  Poland  China,  Berkshire,  and  Yorkshire  breeds.  The  following 
is  a  summary  of  the  results: 

Value  of  rape  with  grain. 


Ration. 


Total 


Total 


niST  a,''1""'■ 


Pounds 
Lot  I,  without  rape       1,017 

Lot  II,  with  rap.'  1,001 


Pound*. 
2,811 
8,412 


Grain 


Pounds. 


Total 
gain. 


Pounds, 
1,184 

1,411 


Avi  r- 
gain. 


Pounds. 
70.2 
88 


Aver-  Aver- 
daily  daily 
Sain  gain 
rst 
six 
wok-,  weeks. 


I'nHml. 

0.71 
98 


1'ounds. 

L08 

L88 


Grain      I 

jK-r  mo     grain 


pounds 
gain 


4:{7 
420 


per  LOO 

pounds 


Dollars. 

:i.  78 
8.86 


Exclusivt  rapi  feeding. — At  the  Wisconsin  station  Carlyle*fed  two 
lots  of  pigs  on  rape  alone  for  two  weeks.  Twolotsof  L8  pigs  each  were 
taken  from  rations  composed  of  grain  exclusively,  grain  and  clover, 
and  grain  and  rape.  They  were  given  nothing  but  rape.  They  i'vt] 
nearly  all  day,  appeared  contented,  and  scoured  but  little,  but  25  of 


a  Eighteenth  An,  Rpt. 


3<  renteenth  An.  Rpt. 


T1IK    HO(}    INDUSTRY. 


155 


the  3G  lost  in  weighl  during  the  two  weeks.  They  were  on  rape,  and 
only  4  made  gains.  The  total  loss  on  36  pigs  was  60  pounds,  or  al  the 
rale  of  1|  pounds  per  pig.  The  6  pigs  that  had  been  on  an  exclusive 
grain  diet  lost  18  pounds,  or  3  pounds  each.     The  8  pigs  thai  had  been 

on  grain  and  clover  lost  L9  pounds,  an  average  of  nearly  2^  pounds 
each,  and  the  22  pigs  that  were  taken  from  a  grain  and  rape  diet  lost 
3o  pounds,  or  1|  pounds  each. 

Soiling. — The  Utah  Station  a  reports  the  results  of  seven  tests  of  the 
value  of  green  feed  to  pigs  in  pens  and  yards  on  full  grain  and  one- 
fourth  grain  rations.  In  four  tests  the  pigs  were  in  pens  and  in  three 
they  were  in  open  j^ards.  The  green  feed  was  mainly  alfalfa,  but 
some  waste  garden  products  were  also  fed. 

During  the  first  two  years  of  these  tests,  embracing  four  experi- 
ments, the  dry  matter  in  the  grass  was  estimated  and  included  in  the 
figures  for  feed  eaten;  but  in  the  last  three  tests  only  the  actual 
weight  of  grain  fed  was  taken  into  account.  The  following  table 
shows  a  summary  of  the  results: 

Value  of  soiling  pigs  on  grass. 


Ration. 


Num- 
ber of 

tests. 


Average 
daily- 
gain. 


Feed 
eaten 
daily. 


Feed  per 

100 

pounds 

gain. 


Average  of  all: 

Full  grain 

Full  grain  and  grass 

One-fourth  grain  and  grass 
Average  of  pens: 

Full  grain 

Full  grain  and  grass. 


Pounds. 
1.04 
1.13 


.94 
1.17 


Pounds. 
4.42 
4.74 


4.05 
4.75 


Pounds. 
424 
414 


442 
402 


These  results  show  a  considerable  advantage  in  daily  gains  for  the 
pigs  that  were  soiled  and  a  similar  saving  in  feed.  The  pigs  in  pens 
show  a  very  marked  advantage  for  soiling.  There  was  an  average 
daily  gain  of  0.23  pound  more  for  the  soiled  pigs  than  for  those  on 
grain  alone,  and  the  feed  required  for  100  pounds  gain  was  nearly  10 
per  cent  less.  It  is  suggested  that  these  good  results  were  due  as 
much  to  the  healthful  action  of  such  feed  on  the  digestive  system  as 
to  their  nutrient  content. 

The  Ontario  Agricultural  College b  conducted  an  experiment  to 
compare  pasturing  on  such  feeds  as  vetches  and  rape  with  their  feed- 
ing in  pens.  Disregarding  the  item  of  labor,  these  results  show  that 
soiling  is  very  economical.  The  average  daily  consumption  of  feed 
by  pigs  in  the  pens  was  approximately  -1  pounds  of  green  feed  and 


«  Bui.  No.  70.     See  page  93  for  explanation  of ; '  partial 
&An.  Rpt.,  1901. 


and  ' ;  full ' '  grain  rations. 


156  BUREAU    OF    ANIMAL    INDUSTRY. 

ounds  of  meal.  This  experimenl  was  part  of  a  breed  test,  and 
generally  the  best  pigs  were  in  the  outside  Lota.  YeA  the  meal  required 
for  LOO  poands  gain  was.  For  all  breeds,  510  pounds  with  the  outside 
Lots  and  ill  for  those  in  the  pens  on  grain  and  green  feed.  At  the 
close  of  the  experimenl  the  pigs  were  sold,  and  the  packer's  report 
showed  nothing  unfavorable  to  the  method  of  feeding.  The  bacon 
produced  was  firm  and  of  good  quality  in  other  ways.  The  pigs  that 
were  soiled  required  twice  as  much  time  for  attention  and  feeding  as 

those  outside. 

I'ii  rslnm  .      I M  umb"  re  polls  a  1  rial  in  I  nd  iana  wit  li  two  Chester  White 

sows  confined  in  small  pens  and  fed  for  twenty-one  days  a  mixture  of 

equal  parts  shorts  and  hominy  meal  with  all  the  purslane  they  would 

eat.     Purslane  was  not  eaten  with  the  relish  that  was  expected,  but 

the  pigs  made  fairly  good  gains  at  a  COSt  of  2.2  cents  per  pound. 

Grazing  chufas. —  Duggar*  hurdled  9  Berkshire  pigs  from  November 
in  to  I  December  17  on  chufas,  with  some  grain,  and  a  mix!  ore  of  corn 
meal  and  eowpea  meal  in  addition.  They  gained  i_l  pounds,  grazed 
7,986  square  feet  of  chufas,  and  ate  262  pounds  of  grain,  thus  requir- 
Lng  only  234  pounds  of  grain  for  LOO  pounds  gain.  With  the  usual 
allowances  for  the  gain  due  to  the  grain  fed,  the  return  per  acre  for 
the  chufas,  estimating  pork  at  :>.l  cents  per  pound,  was  $13.09. 

Grazing  peanuts,  chufas,  and  soy  beans. — At  the  Arkansas  station, 
Bennett0  fed  four  lots  of  half-bred  Berkshire  pigs  to  compare  the 
grazing  values  of  i  hese  I  hree  crops  with  pen  feeding  on  corn.  The  soil 
on  which  the  crops  were  grown  was  a  sandy  loam  with  an  estimated 
capacity  of  30  bushels  of  corn  per  acre.  The  crops  named  were  planted 
in  rows  :\  feet  apart — the  peanuts  14  Inches  apart  in  the  rows,  the 
chufas''  \-  inches  apart  in  the  rows,  and  the  soy  beans  drilled.  The 
stand  was  estimated  at  87  per  cent  for  the  peanuts,  75  per  cent  for  the 
chufas,  and  only  good  for  the  soybeans.  The  corn  was  fed  dry  on 
the  ear,  and  the  grazing  was  done  by  using  hurdles.     The  feeding 

"Bui.  No.  82. 

&Bul.  No.  \22.  Alabama  Expt.  Sta. 

'•Bui.  No.  54. 

''Chufas  are  coarse  plant-  belonging  to  the  Bedge  family.  Two  species  are  used 
in  the  manner  here  mentioned'— <  'yperus  rotundtu  and  L\  eseuU  ntus.  According 
to  Gray.  O.  rotundas  is  found  in  sandy  fields  from  Virginia  to  Florida  and  Texas, 
and  is  occasionally  met  with  in  the  neighborhood  of  Philadelphia  and  New  York 
City.  C  esculentus  is  found  in  low  grounds,  along  rivers,  etc.,  from  New  Bruns- 
wick to  Florida  and  west  to  Minnesota  and  Texas.  This  is  the  species  more  com- 
monly used  BjS  feed  for  fa 

These  plants  form  small  tubers  which  enable  them  to  spread  rapidly  and  form 
a  thick,  matted  growth,  each  tuber  being  capable  of  producing  B  plant.    The 

tuhers  are  relished  by  hogB,  hut  the  plants  are  of  questionable  value,  as  it  is  almost 

impossible  to  eradicate  them  when  once  established,  especially  in  Bandy  soils. 

Botanists  do  QOt  advise  planting  them  in  soil  that  can  be  used  for  any  other 

purp< 


TIIK    HOC     1  N  1)1  STK1  . 


I.",  7 


lasted  forty-six  days,  excepl  for  the  soy  beans,  which  gaveoul  sooner 

than  expected.     The  results  were  as  follows: 

Peanuts,  chufas,  and  *<>//  beans  compared  with  corn. 


Kind  «>f  feed. 


Peanuts . . 
Chufas . . . 
Soy  beans 
Corn 


beHf     Wf»«hi         Total 
1  at  begin-     gain. 

ning. 


pigs. 


Pound*.  Pounds. 

116.5  104.5 

121.3  66 

124.75 

139  112.3 


Average 
daily 

gain. 


Pound. 
0.57 
.85 
o.24 

.81 


a  Thirty-two  days. 

The  areas  of  peanuts  and  chufas  grazed  were  one-twelfth  acre  and 
one-ninth  acre,  respectively.  To  produce  112.3  pounds  of  pork  with 
the  corn-fed  lot  7.6  bushels  of  corn  were  eaten.  From  these  data  the 
yield  of  pork  per  acre  was  estimated  as  follows  :a  Peanuts,  1,252 
pounds;  chufas,  592  pounds;  corn,  436  pounds,  estimating  the  corn 
yield  at  30  bushels  per  acre. 

The  quality  of  the  pork  from  pigs  grazed  on  chufas  and  soy  beans 
was  about  the  same  as  that  from  corn-fed  pigs;  the  peanut-fed  lot 
produced  a  soft,  oily  quality  of  fat,  but  no  deleterious  results  could 
be  detected  in  cooking. 

In  the  following  two  years  Bennett b  grazed  pigs  on  peanuts  and 
chufas,  the  results  being  noted  below.  In  addition  to  the  study  of 
the  feeding  value  of  these  plants,  their  effect  on  the  quality  of  the 
pork  was  studied.  When  hogs  are  grazed  on  peanuts  or  chufas  the 
lard  has  quite  a  low  melting  point;  and,  as  nearly  all  such  feeding  is 
conducted  in  the  Southern  States,  this  condition  gives  rise  to  consider- 
able trouble  during  the  summer  months.  To  obviate  this  difficulty  the 
common  practice  of  farmers  is  to  use  corn  in  finishing  hogs  that  have 
had  peanuts  as  the  principal  component  of  the  ration.  The  results 
of  the  study  of  the  effects  of  these  feeds  on  the  quality  of  pork  are 
presented  elsewhere  in  this  bulletin. 

Bennett's  feeding  results  in  1899  and  1900  follow : 

In  1899  Lot  I  grazed  a  crop  that  was  alternately  three  rows  of 
peanuts  and  one  of  chufas;  Lot  II  grazed  peanuts;  Lot  III  grazed 
chufas;  Lot  TV  grazed  chufas;  Lot  V  grazed  as  Lot  I.  The  grazing 
lasted  sixty  days,  except  for  Lots  TV  and  V,  which  grazed  ninety  days. 
Lots  III,  IY,  and  Y  had  no  finishing  period  on  corn.  Two  pigs  were 
slaughtered  in  both  of  the  first  two  lots  at  the  expiration  of  the  graz- 
ing period,  the  melting  point  of  the  fat  determined,  and  the  remaining 
pigs  put  on  a  full  feed  of  corn.     At  intervals  of  two  weeks  2  more 


a  Soy  beans  not  estimated. 


b  Bui.  No.  65,  Arkansas  Expt.  Sta. 


L58 


lUKKAl      OF    ANIMAL    I  MM  8TR^ 


were  slaughtered  and  the  melting  point  of  the  fat  determined, 
continuing  in  this  manner  until  all  tin-  pigs  were  slaughtered,  bo  thai 
the  last  pi.urs  to  !><•  slaughtered  had  been  on  corn  eight  weeks. 

The  pigs  used  in  tin-  1899  experiment  were  natives,  not  over  one- 
fourth  of  improved  i>l<>od.  They  were  from  ten  t<»  twenty  months  old 
and  a\ eraged  about  1 15  pounds  in  weight. 

In  L  900  the  feeding  was  as  follows:  Lot  I  grazed  on  a  field  of  alter- 
nate rov<  a  of  peanuts  and  ohufas  for  seventy-five  daj  s,  receii  ing  some 
corn  in  addition.  Lot  II  grazed  a  field  of  alternate  rows  of  peanuts 
and  chufas  for  fifty  days,  and  for  twenty-five  days  received  a  quan- 
tity of  com  equivalent  to  that  fed  the  above  lot.  Lot  III  grazed 
peanuts  for  seventy-five  days  and  had  corn  as  Lot  I.  Lot  IN'  grazed 
peanuts  as  above  for  fifty  days  and  had  corn  for  twenty-five  days  as 
the  preceding  lots.  Lot  V  grazed  on  peanuts  and  had  corn  at  the 
same  time  for  seventy-five  days.  Tin-  pigs  of  this  lot  were  purebred 
Berkshire*,  and  were  used  to  determine  the  effect  of  improved  blood 
on  the  melt  ing  point  of  lard. 

The  quality  of  these  pigs  was  somewhat  higher  than  in  the  experiment 
of  i^:»".».  The  pigs  of  Lots  I  to  IV  were  from  eight  to  twelve  months  old 
at  t he  beginning;  the  purebred  pigs  were  from  six  to  eight  months  old. 

'The  gains  of  the  pigs,  while  incidental  to  the  main  purpose  of  the 
experiment,  arc  of  much  interest.     Those  for  L899  are  as  follows: 
Comparativi  gains  in  feeding  pigs  on  i»  minis,  chufas,  and  corn. 


Lot. 

Num- 
ber of 

gh1  at 

beginning. 

Total 
gain. 

Xum-     . 

I 

Hi 
4 
B 

•> 

Pounds. 
116. 1 
116.2 

111.:. 
11.-..:. 
lie,.:, 

I 'mi, ids. 

061 
888 
881 

888 

80 

80 
80 

Pound*. 

l  68 

II         - 

m - 

IV        

- 

1.66 

LSI 

1.47 

The  following  irains  were  made  during  1900: 

( Comparative  gains  in  /<  •  ding  pigs  on  y<  limits,  chufas,  and  com. 


Lot. 


I.. 

II 

III 

IV 

V 


Nam-     .\\ 
i>«'i-  of    weight  at 
i>iur-.    beginning. 


Pound*. 
86 

86 

88 


Total 

gain. 


J 'oil  mis: 

518 

no 

717 


Nam- 

days 

fea. 


daily 
gain. 


Lit 

l  80 

i  n 

1.7(i 

l  88 


( 1  'azingpt  mints.    At  the  Alabama  Station,  Duggara  grazed  6  Poland 
china  pigs  on  peanuts,  with  some  corn  in  addition.     The  Lot  madea 


r.ui.  No.  '.'•■'•. 


THE    HOG    INDUSTRY.  159 

gain  of  380.7  pounds  in  six  weeks  on  an  area  of  about  one-sixth  acre 
and  ate  373  pounds  of  corn.  Estimating  corn  at  40  cents  per  bushel 
and  pork  at  3  cents  per  pound  this  is  a  return  of  $18.34  per  acre  for 
peanuts  from  this  method  of  feeding,  somewhat  less  than  the  Arkansas 
experiment  previously  mentioned. 

On  a  portion  of  the  field  which  was  not  pastured  the  peanuts  were 
dug  and  yielded  at  the  rate  of  62.  G  bushels  (1,5G5  pounds)  of  dry  nuts 
per  acre.  From  this  the  total  feed  required  to  produce  100  pounds 
gain  was  estimated  as  140  pounds  of  peanuts  and  100  pounds  of 
corn — a  total  of  330  pounds  of  concentrates,  with  vines  eaten  not 
estimated. 

Duggar  estimates  the  value  of  the  return  from  peanuts  in  pork  at 
$18  per  acre,  and  states  that  the  same  land  with  the  same  fertilizers, 
would  not  produce  over  200  pounds  of  lint  cotton  per  acre,  which 
would  be  worth  810  or  812,  with  cotton  at  5  or  6  cents  per  pound,  while 
the  expense  of  cultivating  the  cotton  would  be  much  greater. 

In  a  later  experiment  Duggar  a  penned  a  litter  of  9-weeks-old  pigs 
on  a  two-thirds  stand  of  Spanish  peanuts  just  after  weaning.  They 
were  on  this  pasture  from  November  4  to  December  23,  and  ate  162 
pounds  of  corn  meal  for  100  pounds  gain  in  addition  to  grazing  about 
five-sixths  of  an  acre  of  peanuts.  At  4  cents  per  pound  for  pork, 
and  making  allowances  for  the  grain  eaten,  the  return  per  acre  for 
the  peanuts  was  $10.04. 

In  another  test a  a  sow  and  her  litter  of  9  pigs  were  fed  from  Sep- 
tember 30  to  November  4  on  corn  meal,  skim  milk,  and  Spanish  pea- 
nuts from  one-fourth  acre  of  land.  They  ate  355  pounds  of  corn  meal 
and  921  pounds  of  skim  milk.  The  sow  and  pigs  gained  a  total  of 
236  pounds.  At  4  cents  per  pound  for  pork,  valuing  corn  meal  at  $1 
per  100  pounds  and  skim  milk  at  25  cents  per  100  pounds  and  esti- 
mating 325  pounds  of  skim  milk  to  be  worth  100  pounds  corn  meal, 
the  return  per  acre  for  the  peanuts  was  $17.28. 

In  another  testa  7  shoats,  averaging  nearly  100  pounds,  were  penned 
on  Spanish  peanuts  from  October  11  to  November  2  and  fed  some  corn 
meal.  They  made  a  total  gain  of  225  pounds,  eating  286  pounds  of 
corn  meal  and  grazing  the  peanuts  on  0.47  acre,  requiring  only  127 
pounds  of  corn  meal  for  100  pounds  gain.  With  the  usual  allow- 
ances, the  return  per  acre  for  the  peanuts  in  this  test  was  $18.02. 

In  another  testa  7  shoats  were  taken  from  corn  meal,  cowpea  meal, 
and  sorghum  and  placed  on  Spanish  peanuts  and  corn  meal  for  four 
weeks.  They  ate  333  pounds  of  corn  meal  and  grazed  10,593  square 
feet  of  peanuts,  making  a  gain  of  121  pounds,  which  was  at  a  cost  of 
273  pounds  grain  for  100  pounds  gain.  The  value  per  acre  of  the 
peanut  pasture  was  estimated,  by  the  usual  method,  at  $9. 

Some  of  these  pigs  were  continued  by  hurdling  on  peanut  pasture 
and  were  given  some  grain  in  addition  for  five  weeks  longer.  In  this 
period  the  return  per  acre  for  the  peanuts  was  estimated  at  $9.88. 

«  Bui.  No.  122.  Alabama  Expt.  Sta. 


L60 


BUREAU    01     ANIMAL    [NDU8TBY 


In  another  test*  a  Litter  of  7  Poland  China  pigs,  averaging  28 
pounds  in  weight,  were  hurdled  on  Spanish  peanuts  just  after  wean- 
ing. The  pasturing  continued  su  weeks  and  no  grain  was  fed.  The 
total  gain  was  L57  pounds,  an  average  daily  gain  of  0.53  pound.  The 
area  grazed  was  L  3, 887  square  feet,  and  the  return  per  acre,  with  pork 
at  i  cents  per  pound,  was  $20.  L2. 

Pea/nut  pashm  compared  with  corn  meal. — The  Alabama  Station0 

led  one   lot  <>l'   pigs  OB   B  jn-anut    field  which  was  a   poor  Stand,  giving 

some  corn  meal  additional;  another  Lot  had  nothing  inn  the  peanut 
past  ore,  and  a  third  Lot  porn  meal  only.  There  were  3  pigs  in  each  lot, 
and  they  were  of  rather  ordinary  feeding  qualities.  In  four  weeks 
tli**  lot  on  peanuts  and  corn  meal  gained  38.6  pounds,  those  on 
peanuts  alone  gained  21.1  pounds,  and  those  on  corn  meal  lost  5.1 

pounds.      The    lot  on    peanuts  and  corn    meal   ate  206  pounds  of   eorn 

per  LOO  pounds  gain  and  grazed  2,025  square  feet  planted  in  peanuts. 

"This  is  at  the  rate  of  840  pounds  Of  growth  from  1  acre  of  pea- 
nuts (with  less  than  half  a  stand)  and  1,710  pounds  (36.6  bushels)  of 
corn  meal.  With  pork  at  3  cents  per  pound  and  corn  meal  at  40 
dents  per  bushel  of  48  pounds,  this  is  a  gross  return  of  $25.20  and  a 
net  return  (alter  subtracting  the  value  of  the  meal)  of  $10.94  per 
acre  of  peanuts." 

The  pigs  on  peanuts  only  "pastured  an  area  of  3,517  square  feet, 
and  the  gain  made  was  21.1  pounds,  which  is  at  the  rate  of  261  pounds 
of  pork  per  acre.  At  3  cents  per  pound  gross  for  pork,  this  gives  a 
value  of  $7.83  to  the  acre  of  peanuts  on  which  there  was  only  half  a 
stand  of  plants." 

Duggar  estimates  the  value  of  peanuts  in  pork  production  at  si 2  to 
$20  per  acre,  the  higher  returns  being  made  where  corn  meal  supple- 
ments 1  he  peanut  past  ure. 

Peanuts  and  chuf as  compared  with  grain. — Duggar''' fed  four  lots 
of  3  pigs  each  for  eighteen  days  to  compare  the  values  of  peanut 
and  chuf  a  pasture  with  grain  alone.  Lot  I  grazed  Spanish  peanuts 
and  had  a  half  ration  of  a  mixture,  by  weight,  of  corn  meal  -  parts 
and  cowpea  meal  1  part:  Lol  II  grazed  Spanish  peanuts  without  grain ; 
Lot  III  grazed  chuf  as,  with  the  same  half  grain  ration  as  Lot  1:  Lol  IV 
was  \\n\  in  a  hare  lot  and  given  all  the  mixture  i'^\  Lot  I  that  the  pigs 
would  eat   up  (dean.      The  following  table  shows  the  results: 

Peanut  and  chuf  a  pasturt  compared  with  grain. 


i 


Average 
weighl  at 
beginning. 


Spanish  peanutc  grased,  one-half  grain  ration 

Spanish  peanuts  grased j 

Ohufas  grased,  one-half  grain  ration 

Pull  grain  ration 


Pound*. 

108 

181 


Number 
of  pigs. 


Number 

Of  <la\s 

fed. 


^ani-        gain! 


Pound*. 


Pound*. 

l  .60 

.41 

1 .  i*i 

LSI 


BtlL  No.  08,  Alabama  Expt.  Sta. 
Mini.  No.   L22,  Alabama  Expt.  Sta. 


THE    HOG    [NDUSTRY.  1<>I 

Peanut  andchufa  pasture  compared  with  graii     Continued. 

Total  feed  eaten 


Area  grazed  and  ra1  Ion. 


Spanish  peanuts  grazed,  one-half  grain  ration 
Spanish  peanuts  grazed 

Chut' as  grazed,  one-half  grain  ration.. 

Full  grain  ration.  


Area 
grazed. 


Sq.  /<  et. 
8,344 
12,448 
7,937 


( iiiiin 
eaten, 


Pounds. 

152 


152 
304 


Grain  per 

LOO  pounds 

gain. 


I 'oil  lllls. 

L88 


L92 

4:51 


Pasturage 
on  I  acre 

lor  a  UNI. 
pound 
shoat. 


Day 8. 


850 
163 

827 


This  experiment  shows  the  best  returns  when  grain  was  fed  with 
these  crops.  Grazing  peanuts  alone  was  very  unsatisfaetor}7.  The 
return  per  acre  of  peanuts  and  ehufas,  with  pork  at  4  cents  per  pound, 
was  estimated,  where  grain  was  fed,  at  $9.50  and  $9.G2,  respectively. 
The  pigs  on  peanut  pasture  alone  returned  only  $3.03  per  acre  for  the 
crop.  Those  on  pasture  with  grain  made  much  more  rapid  and  eco- 
nomical gains  than  those  on  grain  only. 

The  last  column  of  the  table  is  especially  interesting.  With  a  small 
amount  of  grain  it  is  evident  that  pasture  will  be  available  for  a  much 
longer  period  than  when  no  grain  is  fed. 

Grazing  sorghum  and  cowpeas. — Duggarrt  fed  four  lots  of  3  pigs 
each  for  five  weeks  to  compare  the  value  of  sorghum  and  cowpea  pas- 
ture with  a  grain  ration.  Lot  I  was  hurdled  on  drilled  sorghum  which 
was  in  the  dough  and  ripening  stages  and  received  a  half  grain  ration 
of  a  mixture,  b}^  weight,  of  corn  meal  2  parts  and  cowpea  meal  1  part. 
Lot  II  was  placed  in  a  pen  in  which  sorghum  was  growing  and  had, 
in  addition,  enough  ripe  Spanish  peanuts  to  constitute  a  half  ration 
of  peanuts.  Lot  III  was  hurdled  on  drilled  Whip-poor-will  cowpeas 
on  which  part  of  the  pods  were  ripe  and  received  no  grain.  Lot  IV 
was  confined  in  a  bare  pen  and  given  the  grain  mixture  given  Lot  I 
in  such  amount  as  the  pigs  would  eat  up  clean.  The  following  table 
shows  the  results : 

Grazing  pigs  on  sorghum  and  cowpeas. 


Num- 
ber of 
pigs. 

Average 
weight  at 
beginning. 

Total 
gain. 

Num- 
ber of 
days 
fed. 

Average 
daily 
gain. 

Total  feed  eaten. 

Grain 
per  100 
pounds 

gain. 

Ration. 

Area 

grazed. 

Grain 
eaten. 

Grain 1 

Grazed  sorghum J 

Spanish  peanuts 1 

Pounds. 

59 

59 

57 
64 

Pounds. 

75 

54 

51 
-     124 

35 

35 

35 
35 

Pounds. 
0.71 

.51 

.48 
1.18 

Sq.  feet. 

4. 872 

4.872 
17,964 

Poll  nils. 
244 

Pounds. 
328 

Grazed  sorghum J 

Grazed  ripe  cowpeas.            3 

Grain.  

464 

374 

"Bui.  No.  122.  Alabama  Expt.  Sta. 
8396— No.  47—04 11 


!<' 


Ill    RE  M      01     AMM  AI.     I  N  Dl-l  BY. 


These  results  are  not  verj  satisfactory  for  grazing  on  sorghum  or 
on  oowpeas  without  a  supplementary  grain  ration.  The  waste  of  feed 
in  the  eowpea  lot  was  \  ery  great,  large  numbers  of  the  ripe  pease  fall- 
ing i'»  the  ground  and  sprouting.  Previous  worlj  at  the  Alabama 
Station  has  shown  more  satisfactory  results  when  grain  was  fed  in  con- 
junct Ion  wit  Ii  i  he  eowpea  past  are. 

Duggar  notes  another  <  tperimenl  with  sorghum  grazing,  In  which 
there  was  a  large  waste  of  feed,  although  grain  was  fed.  Seven  shoats 
were  »(ii  the  sorghum  from  June  24  to  September  2,  L899,  and  received 
at  the  same  time  about  L-J  pounds  per  bead  daily  of  a  mixture  of  equal 
parts,  by  weight,  of  eowpea  meal  and  corn  meal  The  piur>  grazed 
1.5,374  square  feet  of  sorghum  and  8,380  square  feet  of  second-growth 
sorghum;  They  ate  812  pounds  of  grain,  or  •';,'<11  pounds  of  grain  per 
100  pounds  of  gain.  Making  allowances  for  the  value  of  the  grain 
fed,  ilic  I'd  urn  per  acre  of  sorghum,  with  pork  at  I  cents  per  pound, 
was  estimated  at  17.80.  The  second-growth  sorghum  produced  only 
about  one-half  as  much  feed  a>  the  first  growth.  Large  quantities  of 
the  sorghum  were  trampled  under  foot,  and  when  some  of  it  was  cut 
and  carried  to  the  pigs  a  given  area  Lasted  much  Longer  than  when 
they  were  turned  in  to  graze.  Duggar  suggests  that  when  labor  is 
cheap  and  abundant  or  a  corn  harvester  is  available  soiling  sorghum 
will  l»e  the  more  profitable  method  <>f  feeding. 

Coivpea pastu/rt  with  corn. — Duggar6  fed  6  Esses  shoats  from  the 
same  litter  to  invest  Lgate  the  pasture  value  of  cowpeas.  Lot  I  received 
corn  only.  Lot  II  was  hurdled  on  cowpeas  that  were  about  half 
matured  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment.  The  field  tested  L3.2 
bushels  per  acre  of  peas,  on  an  anpastured  portion.  Both  Lots 
received  hard-wood  ashes  and  salt.     The  results  were  as  follows 


<  low 

d  corn  compart  d 

with  corn  aloru  . 

Kind  of  feed. 

Nun'.-     Average       T      , 
*»?<*   weight  at      Tog 
pigs,    beginning.      *~ 

Num- 
ber of 

daily 

Corn           l<»> 
eatei 

Corn  alone 

8 
8 

Pounds.      P<»i  wis. 

12 

Pound. 

i  pasture  and  corn.     .. 

The  pigs  were  pastured  on  an  area  of  7,280  square  feet,  or  about 
one-sixth  of  an  acre.  Valuing  pork  ai  3  cents  per  pound  and  corn  at 
40  cents  per  bushel,  the  return  for  cowpeas  per  acre  is  $10.65,  not 
Including  the  value  of  the  manure  made.  By  pasturing,  277  pounds 
of  corn  were  va\  ed  per  LOO  pounds  gain,  and  therefore  an  acre  of  cow- 
peas would  replace  1,662  pounds  of  corn,  using  this  test  as  a  basis. 

The  Maryland  station  fed  a  number  of  pigs  on  eowpea  pasture 
and  concluded  that   cowpeas  are  well  adapted  bo  pigs  about  three 


Bnl  NO.   132,  Alabama   Expt.  Sta. 


Bui.  No.  98,  Alabama   Expt  Sta.        BnL 


THK    BOG    [NDU8TBY. 


L63 


months  old.  The  older  pigs  that  had  been  highly  fed  and  had  always 
been  kepi  in  a  pen  evidently  had  lost  their  rustling  ability  and  did 
no!  thrive  so  well  on  cowpeas. 

PUMPKINS   AND   APPLES. 

Feeding  pumpkins  ran-  and  cooked. — At  Ottawa,  Grisdale0  fed 
pumpkins  to  pigs  in  considerable  numbers.  A  field  was  specially  pre- 
pared, the  seed  being  planted  in  hills  8  feci  apart  each  way.  The 
yield  was  about  9  tons  per  aero  and  the  cost  90  cents  per  ton.  In  feed- 
ing one  lot  received  raw  pumpkins  and  grain  (a  meal  mixture  of  one- 
half  corn  meal  and  one-half  a  mixture  of  equal  parts  of  oats,  peas,  and 
barley).  The  other  lot  received  cooked  pumpkins  and  the  same  meal 
mixture. 

At  the  Oregon  Station,  French*  took  6  Berkshires,  eight  months  old, 
from  a  stubble  field  where  they  had  been  for  six  weeks  and  placed 
them  on  a  ration  of  pumpkins  and  shorts.  The  pumpkins  were  the 
common  yellow  field  variety,  and  were  prepared  by  cutting  up,  remov- 
ing the  seed,  and  cooking  or  steaming,  after  which  shorts  were  mixed 
with  them. 

At  the  New  Hampshire  Station,  Burkett c  fed  pigs  to  compare  cooked 
and  raw  pumpkins.  Lot  I,  consisting  of  3  pigs,  received  skim  milk, 
corn  meal,  and  cooked  pumpkins;  Lot  II,  consisting  of  3  pigs,  received 
milk,  corn  meal,  and  raw  pumpkins.  The  following  table  shows  the 
result  of  these  experiments: 

Value  of  pumpkins  as  feed  for  pigs. 


Ration. 


43 

GO 

A     . 

>> 

ft 

'S  ^ 

c3 

O 

*s 

d 

Oirj 

© 

-a 

a 

erage 

t  begi 

& 
? 

0 

2 

>  ofl 

o 

3 

& 

< 

H 

fc 

Feed  eaten. 


Feed  per  lOOpounds 

gain. 


g  M    Grain. '  Milk.  P™£P'  Grain. 

< 


Milk    Pump- 
Mllk-     kins. 


Ottawa : 

Raw  pumpkins. 
Cooked  pump- 
kins  

Oregon: 

Cooked  pump- 
kins  ... 

New  Hampshire: 
Raw  pumpkins 
Cooked  pump- 
kins  


Lbs.     Lbs.  Lbs.      Lbs. 

1,981 


.      745     ] 
.      706 


6     171.5       499    1.49 

3     142  170       25     2.26 

3     138.6       166       25     2.21 


Lbs.      Lbs.        Lbs. 
2,090  I        26' 


Lbs. 


1,602 

924 
514 


,500 


227 


185 


,523 
630       1,348  302 

630  742  309 


379 


Lbs.     Dolls. 
281       3.08 

1,062       2.96 


1,508 


2.99 
3.31 


447       3. 32 


Averaging  these  results,  the  raw  pumpkins  rations  show  273  pounds 
of  grain  and  37G  pounds  of  pumpkins  for  each  100  pounds  of  gain, 
and  the  cooked  pumpkins  rations,  222  pounds  of  grain  and  1,150 
pounds  of  pumpkins  for  each  100  pounds  of  gain. 


An.  Rpt. ,  1900,  Central  Experimental  Farm.         b  Bui.  No.  54.         c  Bui.  No.  66. 


uu 


1:1   Kl    \i      OF     \NIM  \l.    [NDUSTE'J  . 


Raw  pumpkins  alone. — Burkett*  fed  <>ne  lot  of  ln^s  on  a  ration  <»r 
uncooked  pumpkins  \n  it  1 1  no  other  feed  i  mi  skim  milk  with  the  fol- 
lowing results : 


number 

8 

Pumpkins                       pounds 

A\  i  ragi       weight 

at      begin- 

Milk  per  100  pounds  gain    d< i 

ning 

pounds 

i  n 

Pumpkins      per       LOO      pounds 

Total  gain 

do  ... 

S4 

^ain                              pounds      1,530 

Days  fed. 

Dumber 

26 

Cos!    of    feed    per     LOO    pounds 

Average  daily  gain 

pounds 

1.19 

gain                              dollars        2.89 

Milk  consumed 

do 

680 

Feeding  pumpkins  and  apples.  At  the  sane  time  with  tin*  test 
outlined  in  the  preceding  paragraph,  Burketl  fed  a  l<»i  of  3  pigson  a 
ration  of  apples  an<l  pumpkins,  half  and  half,  cooked.  The  pumpkins 
in  all  the  New  Hampshire  experiments  were  raised  at  a  cost  of  40 
cents  per  ton;  tin-  apples  were  common  cider  apples,  or  windfalls, 
ami  were  valued  ai  L0  cents  per  bushel/    The  results  are  as  follows: 


Pigs  number 

Average    weight    at    beginning, 

pounds           L40 

Total  gain          pounds  116 

Days  fed                         number  25 

Average  daily  gain         pounds  L.54 

Milk  consumed                     do  680 


'A     Pumpkins  and  apples     pounds 

Milk  per  100  pounds  gain   do  545 

Pumpkins  and  apples  LOO  pounds 

gain  . pounds      8,848 

Oosl  of  feed  100  pounds  gain,  dol- 
lars       L65 


The  higher  cost  of  gain  in  this  tost  is  attributed  to  the  apples,  and 
it  is  questioned  whether  it  pays  to  feed  them  at  a  cost  equal  to  or 
exceeding  L0  cents  per  bushel. 

BOOTS    AND   TUBERS. 

Feeding  roots  t<>  live  stock  is  comparatively  recent  in  the  United 
Mate>.  Corn,  wiih  hay  and  ensilage,  has  been  the  principal  mainte- 
nance during  the  winter  months  when  pasture  was  not  available.  In 
hog  feeding  ii  is  safe  to  say  that,  until  very  recent  years,  almost  the 
only  substitutes  for  past  are  wore  pumpkins,  artichokes,  and  clover  <>r 
alfalfa  hay  in  certain  sections.  In  England  and  Canada,  however, 
much  depends  nee  is  placed  on  roots,  and.  while  we  may  never  reach 
the  point  in  this  country  generally  of  fattening  animals  almost 
entirely  on  a  root  diet,  the  peculiar  advantages  to  be  gained  by  them, 
their  great  palatability,  and  the  good  effect  on  the  health  and  thrift 
of  the  animal  commend  roots  i<»  the  stockman. 

A  number  of  experiments  have  been  reported  recently  on  feeding 
roots  i«>  h< 

At  the  Indiana  Station,  Plumb  and  Van  Norman'  conducted  two 
experiments  to  compare  a  ration  composed  solely  of  grain  with  one 


r,ul.  X...  r.f,.  New  Hampshire  Bxpt.  Sta. 

N-  iw  Hampshire  has  no  Legal  weight  per  bushel  for  apples,  and  this  bulletin 
did  not  state  the  weight  used.    The  legal  weight  in  other  States  varies  from  Jt  to 

50  ] ion nds. 

Buls.  X'-.  :'.'  and  82, 


THE    HOG    INDUSTK\  . 


L65 


where  roots  were  added.  in  both  experiments  tin-  grain  ration  was  1 
pari  coin  meal,  2  parts  shorts,  fed  as  slop.  No  drink  other  than  water 
was  given.  In  the  firsl  experimenl  mangels  were  fed;  Ln  the  second 
the  roots  were  sugar  beets  sliced  and  fed  in  the  slop,  and  they  were 
relished  more  than  the  mangels. 

At  the  Ontario  Agricultural  College,  Day"  fed  four  lots  of  pigs  in 
pens  as  follows: 

Lots  I  and  II  were  made  up  of  4  grade  Yorkshire  pigs  each  from  the 
same  litter,  about  seven  weeks  old;  Lots  III  and  IV  contained  5  grade 
Yorkshire  pigs  each  from  the  same  litter,  about  9  weeks  old.  Lot  I 
received  barley  and  middlings;  Lot  II  received  barley  and  middlings 
with  an  equal  weight  of  raw  pulped  mangels;  Lot  III  received  coin 
and  middlings;  Lot  IV  received  corn  and  middlings  with  an  equal 
weight  of  raw  pulped  mangels.  The  proportion  of  grain  to  middlings 
was  1 : 2  in  all  lots  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment,  and  was  grad- 
ually changed  as  the  pigs  increased  in  weight  and  age  until  it  was  2 : 1 
toward  the  close. 

At  the  Utah  Station,  Foster  and  Merrill6  conducted  two  experiments 
to  compare  a  ration  of  bran  and  sugar  beets  with  rations  of  corn  meal, 
ground  wheat,  and  corn  meal  and  peas.  In  the  first  experiment  Lot 
I  received  corn  meal,  Lot  II  received  ground  wheat,  and  Lot  III 
received  sugar  beets  with  a  one-third  ration  of  bran.  In  the  second 
experiment  Lot  I  received  a  mixture  of  equal  parts  of  corn  meal  and 
ground  peas,  Lots  II  and  III  being  fed  as  in  the  first  test.  The  pigs 
were  fed  in  covered  pens,  and  were  given  all  the}'  would  eat.  There 
were  3  in  each  lot. 

At  the  Montana  Station,  Shawc  fed  one  lot  of  hogs  on  grain  only 
and  another  on  the  same  grain  ration  with  sugar  beets  added.  The 
following  table  shows  the  results  of  these  experiments: 

Value  of  roots  as  feed  for  pigs. 


Num- 
ber 
of 

pigs. 

Aver- 
age 
weight 
at  be- 
gin- 
ning. 

Total 
gain. 

Num- 
ber 
of 
days 
fed. 

Aver- 
age 
daily 

gain. 

Total  feed 
eaten. 

Feed  per  100  pounds 
gain. 

Ration. 

Grain. 

Roots. 

Grain- 
fed 
lots. 

Grain-and-root 
fed  lots. 

Grain.    Roots. 

Indiana: 

Grain 

Grain  and  roots 

Grain 

6 
6 
4 
4 

4 
4 
5 
5 

Lbs. 

46 
44 
60 
60 

42 
42 
55 
55 

Lbs. 

443 
356 
444 
382 

501 
672 
664 
744 

77 

98 
98 

196 
196 
196 
196 

Lbs. 
0.96 

1.13 

.77 

.64 
.86 
.68 
.76 

Lbs. 

1,643 
1.320 
1,697 
1,186 

Lbs. 



.514 

1,568 

Lbs. 

371 

382 


439 

Lbs.        Lbs. 

371  1          145 

Grain  and  roots 

Ontario    Agricultural 
College:  d 
Grain. 

310 

410 

Grain  and  roots 

380 

Grain 

455 

Grain  and  roots 

404 

«An.  Rpt,,  1901. 
?' Bui.  No.  70. 


t'Bul.  No.  27. 

(l  The  grain  per  100  pounds  gain  in  the  Ontario  results  is  dry  matter. 


166 


BUREAU    OF    animal    [KDURTRY. 
Value  of  roots  i  forpiga—ContintLecL 


Nu  m 

Total 

Nuin 

ber 

daily 

..  reed 

eat«Mi 

>.  r  1i«i  i».iiiik1s 

•   .11. 

ber    weighl 
at  be- 

Iota 

md-root 
fed 

tungr. 

38 

111 

li:. 

Grain. 

I'tali: 

( torn  meal 

8 

■A 

:\ 

167 

41M 

880 

667 

91 
9] 
.... 
LS8 
128 
188 

88 
68 

i.i:; 

80 

.7(1 

1.80 

1,606 

4-C{ 

Lb*. 

c  (round  wheel 

in  ;iinl  roota 
Oornmealand  pease 

1,068 

< tround  wheat 

>M  and  roots 

:  oa: 

o  1,771 

< train  and  roota 

148 

.\\  erase 

44,> 

a  Includes  ill  pounds  of  potato * 

In  the  experiments  tabulated  here  roots  were  fed  in  seven  tests  to  32 
pigs,  and  in  comparison  grain  was  fed  in  aine  tests  to  38  pigs,  making 
a  total  of  sixteen  lots  and  70  pigs.  In  six  of  the  seven  tots  where 
roots  were  (v(\  there  was  a  saving  of  grain.  In  one  instance  (in 
Indiana)  nothing  was  gained  by  feeding  roots.  Tin-  average  of  feed 
per  100  pounds  gain  shows  that  feeding  -i-7  pounds  of  roots  saved  83 
pounds  of  grain,  or  L9  per  cent,  which  is  a  very  high  value  for  roots. 

This  teal  lire  of  root  feeding  has  previously  been  remarked  upon 
in  this  bulletin.  Attention  is  called  to  it  in  nearly  every  instance 
where  experimenters  have  fed  roots  successfully.  Plumb  and  Van 
Norman  "  do  not  regard  their  results  as  showing  great  value  for  roots, 
but  think  that  they  have  an  effect  on  the  appetite,  digestion,  and  gen- 
eral health  that  is  beneficial,  particularly  in  winter.  In  the  Ontario* 
experiments  the  equivalent  for  L0Q  pounds  <>f  meal  was  319  pounds  of 
roots  in  the  first  and  564  pounds  in  the  second.  Day  calls  attention 
to  the  fact  that  both  figures- are  very  high  values  for  roots,  and  points 
out  that,  "according  to  analyses  and  digestion  experiments,  there  is 
approximately  about  nine  times  as  much  digestible  matter  in  a  mix- 
ture of  corn  and  middlings  as  there  is  in  mangels.  Ii  is  difficult  to 
explain,  therefore,  how  564  pounds  of  mangels  should  prove  equal  to 
!<»<>  pounds  of  meal."  The  pigs  receiving  mangels  showed  the  effects 
of  their  feed  in  more  growth  and  thrift  than  the  others.  They  had 
Less  tendency  to  become  fat,  and  the  root  ration  was  reduced  for  this 
reason.  Day''  explains  this  effect  of  root  feeding  to  be  due  to  a 
"beneficial  effect  <>n  the  digestive  organs  of  the  animals,  causing 
them  to  digest  their  food  better  than  did  the  others;  for  there  is  Little 
doubt  that  hogs  closely  confined  in  pens  are  likely  to  suffer  from 
indigestion.'1    Shaw    explains  the  marked  effect  of  roots  in  similar 


r.ul.  No.  79,  Endiana  Expt  Bta. 


Bui.  No.  27,  Montana  Expt  Sta. 


Bpt.,  LW1,  Ontario  Agricultural  College. 


THE    BOG    INDU8TR5  . 


16 


words,  stating  thai  fche  value  for  sugar  beets  for  pigs  is  "derived 
imt  so  much  from  the  nutrients  in  the  dry  matter  which  they  contain 
as   from    the   influence   they  exerl   on  digestion  and   assimilation." 

'This  action  of  roots  in  the  ration  is  undoubtedly  similar  to  what  lias 
already  been  noted  in  the  case  of  dairy  by-products  and  pasture. 
The  improvement  that  roots  bring  about  in  the  condition  of  the  diges- 
tive system  must  also  affect  indirectly  the  entire  system  and  thus 
promote  the  general  health. 

Henry  found  the  results  at  three  American  stations  to  be  that  about 
G15  pounds  of  roots  saved  UK)  pounds  of  grain.  The  Danish  experi- 
ments give  600  to  800  pounds  of  mangels  and  from  400  to  800  pounds 
of  fodder  beets  as  the  feeding  equivalent  of  100  pounds  of  grain." 

The  average  of  the  results  here  given  indicates  that  about  515 
pounds  of  roots  saved  100  pounds  of  meal,  a  somewhat  higher  value 
for  roots  than  that  given  in  previously  published  work. 

An  experiment  conducted  by  Shaw6  at  the  Montana  Station,  the 
results  of  which  were  published  since  the  foregoing  figures  were  com- 
piled, showed  an  average  daily  gain  for  pigs  of  1.58  pounds,  at  a  cost 
of  $4.60  per  100  pounds  gain  on  grain  only  (9.11  pounds  of  grain  per 
head  daily);  a  second  lot,  on  grain  and  sugar  beets  (6.65  pounds  grain 
and  4.58  pounds  sugar  beets  per  head  daily)  made  an  average  daily 
gain  of  1.64  pounds,  at  a  cost  of  83.80  per  100  pounds.  There  were  4 
pigs  in  each  lot  and  they  were  fed  50  days.  As  a  sidelight  on  the  pos- 
sibilities of  pork  production  in  the  irrigated  Northwest,  it  is  interest- 
ing to  note  that  Shaw  found  his  net  profit  from  feeding  these  8  pigs 
to  be  $14.12,  "or  '53  per  cent  on  the  investment  in  fifty  days." 

Cow/paring  various  roots. — At  the  Central  Experimental  Farm  in 
Canada,  Grisdalec  fed  four  lots  of  pigs  to  compare  the  feeding  value 
of  turnips,  mangels,  and  sugar  beets.  In  each  case  the  meal  mixture 
fed  consisted  of  one-half  corn,  the  other  half  being  equal  parts  of 
oats,  pease,  and  barley.  In  addition  each  pig  was  given  3  pounds  of 
milk  daily  and  all  the  roots  he  would  consume.  The  roots  were  fed 
as  follows:  Lot  I,  turnips  fed  pulped;  Lot  II,  mangels  fed  pulped;  Lot 
III,  sugar  beets  grown  for  forage,  fed  pulped;  Lot  IV,  sugar  beets 
grown  for  sugar  production,  fed  pulped.     The  results  were  as  follows: 

Value  of  various  roots  for  pigs. 


Ration. 


Lot  I,  turnips 

Lot  II.  mangels 

Lot  III.  forage  beets. 
Lot  IV.  sugar  beets  . 


ary  7. 


Lbs. 
101.25 
96.75 
76. 75 
57.00 


Lbs. 
363 


500 
rf528 


NbT"  A^' 

of  »Sf 

d"i.  daily 

fed"  *™- 


106 
106 
106 
138 


a  Feeds  and  Feeding,  pp.  570,  571. 


bBul.No.37. 


0.85 
.90 

1.18 
.95 


Feed  eaten. 


Feed  per  100 
pounds  gain. 


Meal.  Roots.  Milk.  Meal.  Roots.  Milk 


Lbs.       Lbs. 


780 


793 


l.i 


Lbs.        Lbs.        Lbs. 


3,808 

5,930 
4,298 
4.266 


1,284 
1 .  284 
1,284 
1,680 


215 
202 
159 
195 


Lbs.      Lbs 


1,049 
1,524 


'■An.  Rpt..  1901. 

d  Feeding  ceased  May  2.'). 


354 
330 
257 
318 


1  68  B1  BEAU    OG     \MM.\l.    [NDUHTB1  . 

<  »n  Lots  I  ami  II  do  deleterious  results  are  mentioned  in  either 
i»u\  ers'  or  pack  fix"  reports.  <  >n  Lot  III  the  buyer  reported  '■>  "select" 
and  l  ■■  fat,"  and  the  packers1  report  was  oof  so  favorable  to  this  lot 
as  to  Lots  I  and  II.  <  >n  Lot  I V  the  buyer  reported  all  "select;"  there 
was  no  packer's  report  on  carcasses  of  this  lot. 

In  this  experiment  the  pigs  on  forage  beets  made  the  greatest  aver- 
age daily  gains  and  required  the  Least  feed  for  LOO  pounds  gain,  the 
<»ilicr  Lots  standing  in  tin'  order  <>!*  sugar  beets,  mangels,  and  turnips. 
Tin'  results  arc  remarkably  low  in  iv<m|  requirements  and  would  seem 
Lo  >ln>\\  that  roots  and  milk  may  be  more  advantageously  combined 
than  pas!  are  and  milk. 

Daj  at  Guelph  and  Shutt  at  Ottawa  have  found  that  the  effect  of 
roots  on  the  carcass  is  not  detrimental,  but  produces  a  firm  bacon  of 
good  quality— a  very  essentia]  matter  to  Canadian  pig  feeders.  In 
this  experiment  neither  buyers  nor  packers  criticised  adversely  the 
fed  on  turnips  and  mangels,  and  the  carcasses  of  the  sugar-beet 
pigs  were  all  "select"  (there  was  no  packer's  report  on  this  Lot);  but 
the  buyer  found  onecarcass  too  fat  in  the  Lot  fed  on  forage  beets,  and 
the  packer's  report  was  not  so  favorable  as  on  the  others. 

Sugar  beets  alone. — At  the  Colorado  Station,  Buffum  and  Griffith* 
U'(\  \  pigs  on  sugar  beets  alone.  There  was  some  difficulty  at  first  in 
inducing  the  pigs  to  eat  beets,  but  after  they  bad  become  accustomed 
to  such  a  diet  they  took  to  it  readily.  At  no  t  ime  were  i  he  pigs  able  to 
eat  beets  enough  to  approach  the  conventional  feeding  standards; 
12.50  pounds  daily  was  the  greatest  amount  they  would  take.  Pora 
brief  period  at  the  close  (two  weeks)  forage  beets  were  fed,  the  sup- 
ply of  sugar  beets  giving  out.     The  results  were  as  follows: 

Average  weight  at  beginning  .pounds  100 

Total  gain do  67 

Days  fed 99 

Average  daily  gain pound  .17 

Average  amount  of  feed  eaten do  1,027 

Feed  per  100  pounds  gain  do  6,130 

Cost  per  100  ponnds  gain dollars  12.80 

rage  profit  with  pork  at  ?  cents  per  pound  cent  .  L8 

Dressedweight percent  7? 

Sugar  beets  alone  are  thus  seen  to  be  only  a  very  expensive  main- 
tenance rat  ion. 

.1  comparison  of  sugar-beet  pulp  and  sugar  beets. — In  Colorado, 
Buffum  and  Griffith0  fed  one  Lot  of  pigs  on  a  ration  of  sugar-beet  pulp 
and  equal  parts  of  wheat  and  barley;  another  on  the  same  ration, 
except  that  sugar  beets  were  fed  instead  of  pulp;  the  results  with  a 
third  lot,  on  equal  parts  of  wheat  and  barley,  are  compiled  in  the 
table  below  as  a  check. 

Bui.  No.  ;  i. 


Tin-:   i:<m;    inm'stp.y. 


\(\\) 


The  pulp  cost,  laid  down  al  the  college,  $1  per  ton.  It  was  piled 
on  well-drained  ground  and  kept  well  without  an  undue  amount  of 
fermentation.  The  beets  fed  were  grown  on  the  college  farm.  Their 
cost  was  estimated  a1  sl  per  ton.  During  the  Las1  two  weeks  of 
the  experiment  the  supply  ran  out  and  forage  beets  were  substi- 
tuted for  Bugar  beets.  The  change  is  not  thought  to  have  influenced 
results. 

There  was  some  difficulty  in  inducing  the  pigs  to  eat  the  pulp,  but 
the  sugar  beets  were  eaten  from  the  start,  although  they  were  appar- 
ently not  relished  at  first.     The  following  table  shows  the  results: 

Sugar-beet  pulp  compared  with  sugar  beets. 


r. 

S^ 

<M 

>> 

Average  amount 
feed  eaten. 

Feed  per  100 
pounds  gain. 

©      Lh 

13« 

O 

u 

CD 

I 

CD 

o 
.  >d 

<B«M 
_2    * 

"3 

bcce 

-fl    |& 

Ration. 

a 

2 

>  eg 

2 

CD 

> 

B  3 

it 

CD 

> 

P. 

15 

CO 

-M 

CD 

A 

P. 

"3 

w 
-m 

CD 

ost 
poun 

vera 
at  7 
pout 

fc 

< 

< 

fc 

< 

o 

eu 

o 

fc 

o-  <l 

Lbs. 

Lbs. 

Lbs. 

Lbs. 

L6s. 

Lbs. 

£6s. 

Lbs. 

Lbs. 

Z)o//.s.  Dolls. 

Grain 

4 

95 

120 

104 

1  16 

546.50 

450 

4.50       3.90 

Beet  pulp  and 

grain 

4 

97 

88 

99 

.89 

343 

706 

390 

800 

4.30 

3.35 

Sugar   beets 

and  grain  . . 

4 

101 

98 

104 

.94 

416 

391 

420 

400 

5.00 

2.93 

Potatoes. — Clinton a  reports  an  unsuccessful  attempt  at  Cornell  to 
feed  potatoes  raw  and  cooked.  Some  grain  and  skim  milk  were  given  in 
addition,  but,  while  over  400  pounds  of  potatoes  were  eaten,  the  pigs 
made  no  progress  and  were  getting  out  of  condition  when  the  experi- 
ment was  brought  to  a  close.  The  low  temperature  while  the  pigs 
were  being  fed,  ranging  between  29°  and  30°  F.,  is  suggested  as  a 
reason  for  the  poor  results. 

At  the  Central  Experimental  Farm6  very  satisfactory  results  were 
obtained  from  cooked  potatoes,  but  raw  potatoes  produced  little  gain. 
In  one  experiment  the  pigs  were  given  all  the  raw7  potatoes  the}7  would 
eat,  but  made  no  gain  and  the  tubers  were  discontinued.  In  a  sec- 
ond test  a  similar  experience  led  to  a  change  to  cooked  potatoes. 
The  opinion  of  investigators  at  this  station  is  that  raw  potatoes  are  of 
little  value  for  feeding  pigs,  but  when  cooked  they  are  worth  about 
one-fourth  as  much  as  mixed  grain. 

The  following  table  shows  the  results  of  three  tests  where  cooked 
potatoes  were  fed  with  success.     The  meal  fed  was  a  mixture  of  equal 

aBul.  No.  199.  Cornell  University  Expt.  Sta. 
&  Bui.  No.  33. 


17<) 


HI   1:1    \l      01     AM  MAI.    IN  hi  BTR1  . 


pari-  !»\  weight  of  ground   barley,  ground  rye,  ground  frozen  wheat, 

and  bran : 

i  'ok/.*  1/  potato*  8  for  pigs. 


- 

— 

< 

> 

•-- 
1 

d 

- 
4 

mount 

Peed   per    100 
poui 

Ration. 

a 

u. 

Potaf 

Potatoe                      meal 

U.S. 

U.S. 

kiin  milk 

:< 

171 

11.-, 

140 

177 

81* 

Potato*                      meal, 

>kim  milk 

:\ 

IK 

140 

140 

LOO 

7  1".' 

106 

74 

Potatoes  i Iced  i,  meal. 

>kim  milk 

:a) 

198 

It:.' 

140 

1.01 

140 

Sweet  potatoes. — The  Alabama,  South  Carolina,  Maryland,  ami 
Florida  stations  have  experimented  with  sweel  potatoes  with  some- 
whal  varying  results. 

Ai  the  Alabama  Station,  Duggar  fed  <>n<'  lot  of  pigs  on  a  ration  of 
three-fourths  sweet  potatoes  and  one-fourth  ground  cowpeas  an  1 
another  on  a  ration  of  equal  parts  of  corn  meal  and  cowpeas.  After 
four  weeks  they  were  pu1  through  an  intermediate  period  <»f  <>n.-  week 
and  the  rations  were  reversed,  the  lot  that  had  formerly  been  on  corn 
meal  and  cowpeas  receiving  the  sweet  potato  ration.  This  was  con- 
tinued for  four  weeks  longer,  so  that  in  all  there  were  eight  weeks1 
feeding  on  a  sweel   potato  ration. 

The  ration  of  sweet  potatoes  and  cowpeas  proved  very  inferior  to 
the  ration  of  corn  meal  and  cowpeas;  the  increase  in  live  weight  was 
Dearly  twice  as  great  in  the  case  of  coin  meal  and  COWpeas,  and  the 
dry  matter  pei-  loo  pounds  of  gain  was  est  imated  at  600  pounds  where 
sweet  potatoes  were  fed  to  .'Mo  pounds  where  com  meal  was  fed. 
Duggar  refers  to  the  difficulty  of  inducing  the  pigs  to  eat  enough  dry 
mailer  when  sweet  potatoes  made  up  80  much  of  the  ration,  and  sug- 
gests a  ration  of  equal  parts  of  cowpeas  and  sweet  potatoes  as  being 
more  palatable  and  nutritions.  He  questions  whethei  sweet  pota- 
toes can  be  profitably  grown,  stored,  ami  fed  to  hogs  unless  the 
feeding  value  per  bushel  would  he  more  than  l<»  or  L5  cents.  Where 
the  pi°;s  do  the  harvesting,  especially  on  sandy  soils,  where  the  yield 
of  sweet  potatoes  is  ten  or  fifteen  times  thai  of  corn,  they  may  he  an 
economical  feed. 

The  results  at  1  he  Sont  h  Carolina  Stat  ion  were  much  more  favorable 
to  sweet  potatoes.  Newman  and  Pickett  *  U^\  a  lot  of  :;  pigs,  averag- 
ing 162  pounds  in  weight,  on  sweet  potatoes  only  for  forty-three  days, 
beginning  November  23.  Ai  the  same  time  corn  was  U^\  to  •'!  pins. 
averaging  L56  pounds  in  weight.  Two  pigs  in  each  lot  were  high- 
•  !<•  l'.erkshires  and  the  third  was  a  grade  Duroc  Jersey. 


r.ul.  X->.  93. 


r.ui.  n 


THE    BOG     INDUSTRY.  171 

Tli  pigs  on  sweel  potatoes  ate  26.2  pounds  per  head  daily  and  made 
an  average  daily  gain  of  0.86  pound.  They  ate  3,247  pounds  of  sweel 
potatoes  for  LOO  pounds  of  gain. 

The  pigs  on  corn  ate  an  average  of  9.2  pounds  of  grain  daily,  and 
made  an  average  daily  gain  of  L.39  pounds,  requiring  602  pounds  of 
corn  for  LOO  pounds  of  gaiu. 

It  was  estimated  that,  at  200  bushels  per  acre,  sweet  potatoes  would 
produce  369.5  pounds  of  pork  per  acre,  worth  sis. 47  when  pork  is 
worth  5  cents  per  pound.  The  gain  from  corn  was  139.5  pounds  of 
pork,  and  the  corn  yield  was  15  bushels  per  acre  on  land  similar  to 
thai  on  which  the  sweet  potatoes  were  grown.  At  5  cents  per  pound 
tor  pork,  the  money  return  for  the  corn  was  $6.97  per  acre. 

The  Maryland  Station"  reports  an  attempt  to  maintain  pigs  exclu- 
sively on  sweet  potatoes.  A  lot  of  rather  mature  pigs  was  put  on  a 
ration  of  small  sweet  potatoes  and  "strings"  that  were  fed  raw  twice 
a  day  for  thirty-one  days.  It  required  over  5  tons  of  these  potatoes 
for  100  pounds  of  gain,  and  the  return  from  them  was  only  about  $1.60 
per  ton. 

The  value  of  this  feed  when  given  with  grain  was  tested  with  a 
younger  lot  of  pigs  for  thirty  days.  With  this  lot,  593  pounds  of  sweet 
potatoes,  277  pounds  of  milk,  and  about  60  pounds  of  grain  were 
required  for  100  pounds  of  gain,  and  the  value  per  ton  of  the  potatoes 
was  estimated  at  $2.40,  showing  sweet  potatoes  to  be  more  valuable 
when  fed  with  grain  and  milk. 

The  Florida  Station  b  fed  a  lot  of  1  native  hogs  on  a  ration  of  equal 
parts  by  weight  of  sweet  x^otatoes  and  wheat  middlings,  the  ration 
being  3.5  pounds  of  each  per  100  pounds  live  weight  of  hog.  They 
were  confined  in  an  open  pen  and  fed  twice  daily.  The  hogs  aver- 
aged 101.5  pounds  at  the  beginning  of  the  test  and  increased  in  weight 
31. 1G  per  cent,  or  126.5  pounds,  at  a  cost  of  5.6  cents  per  pound  of 
gain  for  feed  eaten. 

At  the  Alabama  Station,  Duggarc  penned  2  shoats,  averaging  116 
pounds,  on  sweet  potatoes  for  thirty-five  days.  They  were  given,  in 
addition,  2  pounds  of  ground  corn  and  1  pound  of  ground  cowpeas 
per  head  daily.  In  the  time  specified  they  gained  67  pounds,  an  aver- 
age daily  gain  of  0.93  pound,  thus  requiring  313  pounds  of  grain  in 
addition  to  the  sweet  potatoes  for  each  100  pounds  gain.  Duggar 
states  that  the  sweet  potatoes  were  not  relished  greatly  and  that  there 
was  much  waste  of  them,  due  probably  to  the  relatively  large  amount 
of  grain  fed. 

Artichokes. — At  the  Oregon  Station  ^  French  took  6  Berkshire  pigs 
from  wheat  stubble  on  October  22  and  placed  them  on  a  field  of 
artichokes  that  had  been  planted  in  April  on  deep-plowed  ground, 
prepared,  as  for  potatoes,  in  rows  3  feet  apart,  with  the  seed  18 
inches  apart  in  the  row.  The  growth  was  vigorous  and  the  yield 
abundant,  the  tops  growing  to  a  height  of  7  feet  during  the  season, 


"Bui.  No.  68.  h Bui.  No.  55.  'Bui.  No.  122.  <i Bui.  No.  54. 


L72 


BUREAU     OF     ANIMAL    l.MH  BTBT  . 


;iik1  a  trial  plot  showing  a  yield  of  740  bushels  per  acre.  The  pigs  had 
f ree  access  to  the  held  and  did  all  the  harvesting.  An  attempl  to 
Biistain  them  entirely  od  the  tubers  failing,  some  shorts  were  fed  in 
add  if  inn. 

Ai  Ottawa,  Grisdale*  sowed  a  plot  of  one-sixteenth  acre  with  aboul 
70  pounds  of  tubers  on  May  L9,  planting  in  rows  24  inches  apart,  4 
inches  deep,  and  20  inches  apart  in  the  rows.  >i\  pigs  were  turned 
in  I  October  :;.  Although  the  tubers  were  immature  at  that  time,  the 
tope  were  from  LOto  L3  feet  high.  The  pigs  wrere  allowed  a  daily  grain 
ration  <>f  1.5  pounds  of  a  mixture  composed  <>i"  one-half  corn  meal  and 
one-half  of  a  mixture  <>r  equal  parts  of  ground  oats,  pease,  and  barley. 

In  both  experiments  the  Jerusalem  artichoke  {  Hdianthustuih  rosus) 
was  lived.     The  following  table  shows  1 1n-  results: 

Artichoh  a  tufi  •  dfor  pigs. 


Station. 


( tttuwa 


Pounds. 
102.  t; 
104.6 


Total 


Pounds. 

-.'14 

UR 


Num-    .  ,    , 


u'iiin". 


per  WO    BfraSy*r 
fed.        pounds     pW 


gain 


gain 


Is.    Found*. 
1.67  US 


['•mulls. 

Dollars. 

• 

Tin' cost  of  the  meal  in  the  Oregon  experimenl  was  estimated  at 
$12  per  ion;  that  in  the  Canadian  one  al  $18  per  ion.  Valuing  the 
meal  made  al  $6.25  per  K><»  pounds,  Grisdale  estimates  that,  after 
deducting  tin-  cost  of  the  meal  fed,  a  balance  of  $10.61  is  left  for  the 
artichokes  fed,  and  deducting  from  this  the  cost  of  seed,  planting, 
renl  of  land,  etc.,  the  one-sixteenth  acre  used  gave  a  nel  return  of 
pork  worth  $8.7( 

ROUGHAGE. 

Hogs  are  generally  regarded  as  animals  whose  peculiar  function  is 
the  conversion  of  concentrated  feed  into  meat.  Although  the  capac- 
ity f<»r  bulky  U-in\  that  we  find  in  the  stomachs  of  cattle  and  sheep  is 
lacking  in  hogs,  a  reasonable  amount  of  bulk  in  the  form  of  roots  or 
hay  is  palatable  ami  profitable.  In  many  parts  of  the  country,  where 
concentrates  are  costly  feeds,  stockmen  are  forced  i<»  use  substitutes 
for  at  least  a  part  of  the  grain  ration,  both  for  fattening  and  mainte- 
nance, and  over  the  entire  country  the  winter  ration  is  a  problem. 
To  solve  these  problems  many  western  farmers  have  resorted  to  the 
!'  alfalfa  hay.  and  outside  alfalfa  districts  clover  hay  is  osed. 
Considerable  si  ndj  lias  been  devoted  to  this  subject  by  the  experimenl 
stations. 

Alfalfa  h'ii/.  The  Kansas  Experimenl  station  has  reported  a 
series  of  experiments  with  drouth-resistant  crops.      Three  of  these 


An.  Rpt  1900,  Centra]  Experimental  Farm. 


/'Bnl.  No.  05. 


THE    HOG     INMSTKY 


173 


experiments  had  to  do  with  alfalfa  hay.  In  the  first,  the  hogs  used 
were  of  mixed  breeding — Berkshire  and  Poland  China  representing 
about  tin'  average  of  Kansas  farm  hogs.  The  alfalfa  was  of  good 
quality. 

Two  lots  were  fed — one  receiving  the  hay  whole  in  greater  quantity 
than  it  would  consume,  the  other  having  ground  hay.  In  the  second 
test  the  meal-fed  Lo1  received  some  cotton-seed  meal — 0.16  pound  to 
each  pound  of  Kafir  corn,  which  did  not  affed  the  hogs  seriously. 
This  test  was  conducted  during  the  most  severe  weather  of  the  winter, 
the  thermometer  registering  32°  F.  below  zero  February  12,  ten  days 
after  the  experiment  began. 

In  the  third  test  the  grain  was  wet  with  water  at  the  time  of  feed- 
ing.    The  alfalfa  hay  had  been  cut  late  and  was  rattier  woody. 

The  Utah  Station  "  fed  one  lot  of  hogs  on  a  mixture  of  equal  parts 
by  weight  of  chopped  wheat  and  bran,  wet.  Another  lot  had  the  same 
grain  ration  with  chopped  alfalfa  hay  added.  "  The  alfalfa  used  was 
well  cured  and  was  prepared  b}T  running  through  an  ensilage  cutter, 
the  blades  of  which  are  arranged  for  cutting  into  half -inch  lengths." 
The  pigs  were  thrifty  grade  Berkshires. 

The  .Montana  Station6  fed  three  lots  of  hogs  to  compare  the  feeding 
values  of  a  grain  ration  with  sugar  beets  and  alfalfa  hay  as  roughage 
with  a  ration  of  grain  only.  The  results  of  the  lots  that  were  fed  on 
grain  alone  and  on  grain  and  alfalfa  hay  are  presented  herewith.  The 
lot  on  grain  alone  received  a  ration  consisting,  during  the  early  part  of 
the  experiment,  of  2  parts  of  damaged  Avheat  and  1  part  oats,  barley 
taking  the  place  of  the  wheat  during  the  latter  part  of  the  experiment. 
The  hay-fed  lot  had  the  same  ration  with  alfalfa  hay  added.  The 
alfalfa  hay  was  run  through  a  cutting  box,  moistened,  and  mixed 
with  meal.  The  hogs  were  by  a  Berkshire  boar  out  of  high-grade 
Poland  China  sows.  They  had  previously  had  the  run  of  a  stubble 
field,  with  some  clover  pasture. 

The  following  table  shows  the  results  of  these  experiments : 

Value  of  roughage  for  pigs. 


Ration. 

No. 

of 

pigs. 

Aver- 
age 
weight 

at  be- 
ginning. 

Total 
gain. 

No. 

of 

days 

fed. 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain. 

Feed  eaten. 

Feed  per  100 
pounds  gain. 

Grain.    Hay.  Grain.    Hay. 

Kansas: 

Kafir  corn  meal,  dry  . 

10 

10 

10 

6 

Lbs. 
126 

127 

127 

161 

164 

Lbs. 

:>24 

909 
833 
126 
117 

63 
63 
63 
22 
22 

Lbs. 

0.83 

1.44 

1.32 

.96 

.88 

Lbs.      Lbs. 
3.925    

4.679       «K0 

Lbs.      Lbs. 
749 

Kafir  corn  meal,  dry,    and 
whole  alfalfa  hay 

515       72. 4 

Kafir   corn  meal,  dry,  and 
ground  alfalfa,  hay 

4,479 
681 
629 

656 

538       7H  7 

Kafir  corn  meal,  and  cotton- 

540 

Kafir  corn  meal,   wet,  and 
wholealfalfa  hay... 

6 

251          538 

214 

Bul.  No.  TO. 


&  Bul.  No.  27. 


171 


m   BE  \i     OF    ANIMAL    QTDUS1  Rl  . 


i  'iiin,  of  roughage  for  pigs    <  kmtbraed. 


1  v;it  i.  .!i 


A\.-r 


.     Total 

£8 


l\;iii->;i-      (  '•  'fit  in  ii«-«  1 . 

Katie  .-.pi-ii.  \vli..|.- 
Kafir  OOCTI  im-al 
Kafir   «•<  >rn.    wh«>].-.    ami    al 
falfa  hay 

Kafir  oarn  meal  ami  alfalfa 

hay 

Utah: 

i  hopped  wheal  and  bran 

Chopped     wht-at     and    bran 

and  chopped  alfalfa  hay 
Montana: 

( train  only 

( train  and  alfalfa  haj 
Avers 

Por  lota  fed  grain  only 

Por  Lots  ff<l  hay 


10 

10 
10 
10 

I 
1 


ginning. 
L8B 


1  IS 
140 


Ml 


GO  '.'l 

BO  .88 

60  1.87 

E0  L8I 


889       186 


567 


186        1.19 


m       1.20 
88        1.19 


;.r  Kll 


1*1 


IKlUIKl 


11,., 


."-•I 


181 


:»i»;    188 


186 


II. 


The  feeding  value  of  alfalfa  hay,  as  indicated  in  i  he  foregoing  tables, 
does  not  in  the  least  warrant  a  claim  that  it  can  be  used  economically 
as  the  sole  ration.  In  all  but  two  instances  a  considerable  saving  of 
feed  was  found  to  be  effected  by  its  use,  but  the  statement  that  its 
feeding  value  is  almost  equal  to  that  of  corn  is  true  only  within 
certain  Limits.  Where  hogs  arc  confined  to  an  exclusive  grain  rat  i<>n, 
and  especially  where  this  is  made  up  of  a  single  main,  the  addi- 
tion of  a  moderate  amount  of  hay  1<>  the  ration  will  l>e  relished  and 
Less  grain  will  l>e  required.  At  the  same  time,  better  and  cheaper 
gains  are  usually  made  by  hogs  so  fed  than  by  those  on  grain  alone, 
inn  the  value  of  the  grain  saved  is  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  value 
of  i  he  hay  fed,  and  t  he  hay  in  t  he  rat  ion  can  not  be  used  economically 
in  more  than  very  moderate  amounts.  This  is  a  similar  fact  to  thai 
which  has  been  found  by  many  investigators  with  such  bulky  feeds 
as  green  clover,  rape,  roots,  and  skim  milk.  That  it  is  had  economy 
to  attempt  the  maintenance  of  hogs  on  alfalfa  hay  alone  is  shown  by 
the  experiment  noted  below  by  McDowell  in  Nevada, 

A  consideration  of  the  approximate  proportions  of  hay  to  grain  (>'*\ 
in  these  experiments  isof  interest.  The  greatest  proportion  of  hay 
bo  grain  was  fed  al  the  Kansas  Station  and  the  ratio  was  L:  2.5.  Willi 
this  ratio  the  Least  daily  gain  was  made.  The  gains  were  the  most 
expensive  of  any  of  the  lots,  and  no  advantage  accrued  from  the  use 
of  hay.  The  Least  proportion  of  hay  (1:11)  was  U^\  at  CTtahand  gave 
the  most  economical  gains.  'The  greatest  daily  gain  and  the  greatest 
amount  of  -rain  saved  was  in  a  Kansas  lot    [\-([  whole  alfalfa  hay  and 


THE    HOG    [NDU8TR1  . 


175 


dry  Kafir  corn  meal  in  the  proportion  of  1:7.  The  following  table 
shows  the  effecl  of  these  rations  in  greater  detail.  The  best  results 
seem  to  come  from  the  use  of  hay  in  the  proportion  of  from  one- 
seventh   to  one-fourth   of   the    ration   when    hay  makes   up   all    the 

roughage: 

Utitio  of  hay  t<>  grain  in  feeding  hogs. 


Ratio  of  hay  to  grain. 

Average 
daily 
gain. 

■  I  per  LOO 
pounds  tfain. 

(Jrain 
saved. 

Grain.        Hay. 

Kansas: 

L2.5                                   

I'oii  nils. 

0.88 
1.37 
1.37 

1.44 
1.32 

1.19 

1.19 

Pounds.     Pounds. 

214 
501          131 

516          12:3 
515            72. 4 

538            78. 7 

486            (57 

455             41.7 

I'd"  il'ls. 

1.8 

1:4                                          

139 

w 

137 

" 

234 

1-7                                                                              

211 

Montana: 

1:7                              

46 

Utah: 

1:11         

9 

Feeding  alfalfa  hay  alone. — There  is  very  little  experimental  work 
work  on  this  phase  of  the  subject.  The  opinions  of  experimenters 
and  of  stockmen  generally  seem  to  be  that  whenever  hay  alone  is 
resorted  to  it  is  no  better  than  a  maintenance  ration.  In  the  alfalfa- 
growing  districts  hogs  are  frequently  run  through  the  winter  at  the 
haystacks  owing  to  the  scarcity  and  expense  of  a  grain  ration.  At 
the  Nevada  Station,  McDowell0  fed  two  lots  of  2  pigs  each  on  a 
ration  of  alfalfa  hay.  The  two  lots  ate  in  twenty-one  days  99.12 
pounds  and  99.14  pounds,  respectively,  and  lost  in  weight  33.25 
pounds  and  51  pounds,  respectively,  an  average  daily  loss  of  0.79 
pound  and  1.21  pounds,  respectively.  "While  feeding  hay  alone 
the  pigs  spent  much  time  curled  up  in  the  bedding,  but  when  about 
the  stalls  were  restless,  and  even  in  eating  it  was  done  in  a  ravenous 
way  unlike  that  of  a  hearty,  well-fed  pig."  After  the  hay-feeding 
period  both  lots  were  given  grain  and  roots  and  made  satisfactory 
gains. 

Sugar  beets  compared  with  alfalfa  hay. — The  Utah  Station.6  con- 
ducted three  experiments,  which  give  valuable  data  on  the  relative 
feeding  value  of  sugar  beets  and  alfalfa  as  winter  roughage.  In  the 
first  experiment  Lot  I  had  all  the  alfalfa  hay  they  would  eat  and  2 
pounds  of  corn  meal  per  head  daily.  Lot  II  received  all  the  beets 
they  would  eat  and  2  pounds  of  bran  per  head  daily. 

In  the  second  experiment  Lot  I  had  all  the  alfalfa  hay  they  would 
eat  and  2  pounds  of  bran  per  head  daily;  Lot  II  had  all  the  alfalfa 
hay  the}'  would  eat  and  3  pounds  of  bran  per  head  daily;  Lot  III  had 
all  the  sugar  beets  they  would  eat  and  2  pounds  of  bran  per  head 


«  Bui.  No.  40. 


l>  Bui.  No.  70. 


176 


Bl   i:i   \i      «»i      ANIMAL    in  hi  -  I  \i\ 


*\-a\\\  ;  l.«»i  iv  had  all  t  1m*  sugar  beets  they  vrould  <-ut  and  3  pounds  of 
bran  per  head  daily. 

In  the  third  experiment  Lot  I  had  all  the  alfalfa  hay  they  would 
eat  and  -  pounds  of  a  grain  mixture  of  equal  parts  bj  weight  of  bran 
and  chopped  frozen  \v  heat  per  head  dailj  ;  Lot  1 1  w as  fed  all  i he  alfalfa 
hay  they  would  eat  and  ;;  pounds  of  the  same  grain  mixture  afl  I 
per  head  daily;  Lot  III  lia<l  all  the  sugar  beets  they  would  eat  and 
the  same  grain  ration  as  Lot  I:  Lot  IV  was  fed  all  the  Bugar  beets 
they  would  eat  and  the  same  main  ration  us  Lot  II. 

The  Montana  Station4  fed  our  lot  <>f  7  pigs  on  a  grain  ration  con- 
sisting of  -  parts  of  damaged  (frosted)  wheat  and  l  part  oats,  with 
raw  sugar  beets;  another  lot  of  7  pigs  had  the  same  grain  mixture, 
with  chopped  alfalfa  hay.  Barley  replaced  the  wheat  during  the 
latter  part  of  t  he  experiment . 

'The  following  table  combines  the  results  of  these  experiments: 


Alfalfa  hay  compared  with  sugar  I"'  is  for  pigs. 


5 

- 

3. 

- 

: 
■- 

— 

I 

to 

lail  y 

Peed  eaten. 

Peed  iH-r  LOO  pounds 

Ration. 

0 

- 

i 

- 

Average   <n 
at  beginni 

Grain. 

Bay 

Ttali: 

Alfalfa  :in<l  oorn  meal 
Sugar  beets  and  bran  . . 

Alfalfa    and   :.'  pounds 
bran  per  head  daily 

Alfalfa    and    'A    pounds 

bran  per  head  daily 
Sugar     beets     and     :.' 
pounds  bran  dot  head 
daily     

Sugar     i be     and     8 

pounds  bran  per 
daily                  

Alfalfa    and    8    pounds 

grain  pet  head  daily 
Alfalfa  and  :t   pounds 
grain  per  head  daily 
:•     beets     and     8 
pounds     grain     per 
head  dail] 

:\ 
:\ 

:\ 

5 

:» 

■"> 
1 

Lbs. 
LOB 

96 

LOB 
108 
LOB 

81 
61 

111 

111 

Lbs. 
L96 

m 

85 

121 

l.v. 
211 

801 

75 
75 

:.t 

54 

:.» 
71 
71 

71 

71 

Lbs. 

.  \: 
.  7."> 

38 

1.08 

11'.' 
L.26 

Lbs. 

751 

815 

TOO 
1,060 

700 

1,060 

Lbs. 
[46 

21fl 

Lbs. 
L.100 

1,870 
1,848 

U.S. 

U4 

861 
806 

181 
170 

L88 

Lbs. 
1,641 

m 

1  n72 

and     -\ 
pounds     grain     per 
bead  dailj 

till 

na: 

Alfalfa  and  grain 

'•■  1 ts  and 

142 

■     ■ 

423 

t',17 

■•Hul.  N 


b Includes  '-.':;.*>  poui  n  meal 


TIIK     llnil     INDI'STRV. 


177 


This  table  shows  mm  average  for  pigs  fed  on  grain  and  alfalfa  of  423 
pounds  of  grain  and  \-2:\  pounds  of  hay  per  l<><>  pounds  of  gain,  and 
an  average  for  pigs  fed  on  grain  and  sugar  beds  of  358  pounds  of 
grain  and  617  pounds  of  beets — a  difference  of  05  pounds  of  grain,  or 
over  15  per  cent   in  favor  of  sugar  beets. 

.'J t\ilf<i  hay  and  sugar  beets  in  a  grain  ration. — Since  the  foregoing 
results  were  compiled  the  Colorado  Station"  has  reported  results 
unfavorable  to  either  hay  or  sugar-beet  feeding.  Nine  Berkshire 
pigs,  averaging  about  150  pounds,  were  fed.  Lot  I  received  a  mix- 
ture of  approximately  2  parts  barley  and  1  part  corn,  and  about 
one-half  pound  alfalfa  hay  daily;  Lot  II  had  the  grain  ration  only; 
Lot  III  had  the  grain  ration  and  about  1  pound  of  sugar  beets  daily. 
There  was  some  difficulty  at  first  to  get  the  pigs  in  Lot  I  to  eat 
alfalfa,  but  when  it  was  cut  fine  and  mixed  with  barley  slop  they 
would  take  it.     The  results  were  as  follows : 

Alfalfa  hay  compared  with  .sugar  beets  for  pigs. 


m 
6p 
ft 

*o 
t-, 

0> 

a 

S3 

^3    • 
^60 

"S.S 

o>.g 

60  60 

S3 

o> 
60 

> 
< 

02 

a 

>> 

'£ 

©.a 

60  cS 
cS  60 

3 
> 
< 

Average  amount  feed 
eaten. 

Feed  per  100 
pounds  gain. 

3 

.    60 

ll 

,03 

on  a 

88-g 

Ration. 

o 
O 

o> 

w 

02 

5 

>> 

o: 

0> 
o 
pq 

h  s  Jh 

Grain  and  al- 
falfa hay 

Grain  only 

Grain  and 
sugar  beets... 

3 
3 

3 

Lbs. 

162 
155 

148 

Lbs. 

101 

105 

96 

97 
97 

97 

Lbs. 

1.13 

LOS 

.99 

Lbs. 

410 
381 

350 

Lbs. 

191 
174 

184 

Lbs. 

55 

Lbs. 

L6s. 

544 
528 

555 

Lbs. 
49 

L6s. 

Dolls. 

4.90 
4.60 

5.20 

1.73 
1.94 

99 

103 

1.26 

In  this  experiment  neither  the  feeding  of  beets  nor  hay  gave  eco- 
nomical results.  Grain  feeding  was  cheaper  than  either,  although 
the  gains  from  grain  and  hay  were  somewhat  larger  than  those  from 
the  pigs  on  grain  only.  The  proportion  of  hay  to  grain  fed  in  this 
experiment  was  approximately  1: 11;  that  of  beets  to  grain  was  a  little 
wider  than  1:  5. 

Corn  fodder. — The  Maryland  Station  has  conducted  a  number  of 
experiments  with  ground  corn  fodder,  or  "new  corn  product,"  as  it  is 
otherwise  called.  This  product  is  the  ground  residue  of  cornstalks 
from  which  the  pith  has  been  removed.  It  was  fed  to  pigs  varying 
in  age  at  the  beginning  from  eight  to  twelve  weeks.  All  rations  con- 
tained milk,  and  the  fodder  was  fed  in  different  proportions  to  note 
any  possibly  advantageous  results  from  such  a  practice.  No  special 
advantages  could  be  observed  from  feeding  the  corn  fodder,  either  in 


8396— No.  47—04- 


«Bul.  No.  74. 
■12 


L78 


li   1.1    \  i      OS      \M  M  \I.     INDUSTRY. 


uing  the  amount  of  grain  required  for  LOO  pounds  of  gain  or  in 
lowering  the  cost,  except  after  the  pigs  were  Bis  months  <»1<1.  For 
fairlj  mature  pigs  the  "  new  corn  product  "  probably  would  have  an 
effect  in  a  ration  somewhat  Bimilarto  that  of  alfalfa  hay. 

BREED    TESTS. 
IM-  i.i  BN(  i:   I  'i     BREED   ON    FEEDING    Pi  >\\  BBS. 

In  the  foregoing  pages  attention  has  been  called  i<>  the  fact  that 
there  is  very  little  difference  in  the  standards  of  excellence  for  the 
various  breeds  of  what  has  come  to  be  designated  the  "lard,"  "fat," 
"block,"  or  "corn-belt"  hog.  Tests  of  the  different  breeds  made  in 
different  parts  of  the  count  ry  show  t  hat ,  with  standards  t  hat  are  simi- 
lar to  a  large  extent,  their  is  very  Little  difference  in  the  cost  of  pork 
product  ion  by  the  best  represents  ives  of  any  of  the  established  breeds. 
Indeed,  these  experiments  show  rather  more,  for  they  indicate  that 
the  breeds  of  the  bacon  type  rank  well  in  economy  of  gain  with  those 
of  the  "corn-belt  n  lard  type.  Curtiss  and  Craig0  quote  Hayward  of 
the  Pennsylvania  Station  to  the  effect  that  the  results  obtained  in 
.Maine,  Massachusetts,  and  Ontario  show  the  feed  eaten  per  LOO  pounds 
gain  by  various  breeds  to  l>e  as  follows:  Poland  China.  i"7  pounds; 
Berkshire,  419  pounds;  Tamworth,  420  pounds;  Chester  WTiite, 
pounds;  Duroc  .Jersey,  522  pounds.  'The  writer  has  averaged  results 
Tor  six  Leading  breeds  obtained  by  various  experiment  stations  when 
there  were  a  sufficient  number  of  tests  and  a  total  number  of  pigs 
Large  enough  to  make  the  averages  thoroughly  representative.  Te- 
stations whose  figures  weir  used  are  Maine,  Vermont,  New  York 
State,  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  and  Iowa,  in  the  United  States,  and  the 
Ontario  Agricultural  College  and  the  Central  Experimental  Farm, in 
Canada.  The  following  table  Shows  a  variation  in  teed  per  1""  pounds 
of  gain  from  344  to  418  pounds: 

/'.  i '/  required  for  100  pounds  gain  by  differ*  uf  !>!■■  ■ 


Tamworth 
Chester  White 
Poland  China 
Berkshire 
Largi  Yorkshire 


Number  Number    per  H«i 
-      pounds 


Hi 

a 

71 

ua 

n 

89 

it 

Bui.  No.  W,  p.  lit.  [< 


Expt.  Sta. 


Pound*. 

m 
as 


THE    HOG    rNDUSTRY. 


179 


Towa  experiments.  Curtiss  and  Craig  have  reported  the  results  of 
three  years'  feeding  of  purebred  pigs  of  six  leading  breeds,  includ- 
ing representatives  of  the  Tamworth  and  Yorkshire  breeds.  WTiile 
bhe  pigs  were  with  the  dam,  records  were  kepi  of  all  feed  consumed 

and  the  loss  or  gain,  and  the  loss  or  gain  in  weight  of  the  sows  was 
entered  in  the  accounts  of  the  total  pork  production  before  weaning. 
Benry  reports  the  results  of  trials  with  8  litters  of  pigs  at  the  Wiscon- 
sin Station,"  when  he  found  the  feed  required  for  100  pounds  gain  by 
both  sows  and  pigs  before  weaning  to  be  little  more  than  that  required 
by  the  pigs  alone  after  weaning.  In  the  Iowa  tests  there  was  a  very 
marked  variation  in  the  maintenance  of  flesh  by  the  sows,  which  was 
perhaps  due  rather  more  to  individual  than  to  breed  differences,  and 
which  had  much  to  do  with  the  economy  of  the  feeding  before  wean- 
ing. The  average  cost  of  100  pounds  of  gain  for  the  three  years' 
experiments,  both  for  the  sows  and  pigs  before  the  latter  were  weaned, 
and  for  the  pigs  after  weaning,  was  as  follows : 

Cost  of  100  pounds  of  gain  before  and  after  weaning.** 


Sows  and 
Breed.                 pigs  before 
weaning. 

Pigs  after 
weaning. 

Breed. 

Sows  and 

pigs  before 

weaning. 

Pigs  after 

weaning. 

Berkshire. fA  29              $2.33 

Duroc  Jersey 

$5.61 
1.83 
2.22 

$2.27 

Poland  China 3. 15 

2. 23 
2.46 

Yorkshire 

2.14 

Chester  White 3.27 

2.42 

a  Bui.  No.  48,  Iowa  Expt,  Sta. 

According  to  these  figures,  sows  of  the  bacon  breeds  (Yorkshire 
and  Tamworth)  onty  made  cheaper  gains  with  their  pigs  before  wean- 
ing than  the  pigs  alone  after  weaning.  The  Poland  China  sows  showed 
the  cheapest  gains  among  those  of  the  lard,  or  fat,  type. 

After  weaning  the  pigs,  the  Iowa  Station  b  put  on  feed  those  that  were 
in  thrifty  condition  and  compared  the  same  breeds  from  this  stand- 
point. The  conditions  of  feed  and  management  were  as  nearly  alike 
as  possible  for  each  breed  in  each  year's  feeding.  The  nutritive  ratio 
was  1 :  5.8  for  all  breeds  in  the  first  experiment,  from  1 :  5.5  to  1 :  5.7  in 
the  second,  and  from  1:7.1  in  the  third.  The  first  year's  work  was 
nearly  wrecked  by  hog  cholera,  so  that  the  results  of  only  a  limited 
period,  of  time  were  published.  The  following  table  has  been  arranged 
from  the  results,  to  show  the  feeding  record  of  each  breed  in  each 
experiment  and  the  average  of  each  breed  for  the  three  years'  feeding. 


«  Feeds  and  Feeding,  p.  541. 


&Bul.  No.  48,  Iowa  Expt.  Sta. 


L80 


M  1:1   \i     01     AMMAl.    [NDUS1  Rl  . 


Breed  /. >v.s-  ofpigt — tlnii  years'  experiment* 


Bn 

1 

I. 

-  - 

©J 

5 

I 

1 

- 

-.  q 

h 
- 
- 
< 

i  »i\  matter  per 
LOOponnda 

-  d 

1 

-  - 

Berkshire: 

First  experiment 

ad  experiment 
Third  experiment 

;:: 

in 

:il 

90 
192 

88] 
1,711 

158 
164 

1.68 
1.04 

6,058 

lb*. 

hull*. 
.'Mil 

Average  

.98 

in 

107 
801 

884 
1,606 

Poland  < 'hina: 

First  experiment 

ml  experiment 
Third  experiment 

68 
64 

to 

158 
L64 

LOO 

1,418 

Ml 

Average  

419 

Chester  White: 

First  experiment 
Second  experiment 
Third  experiment 

in 
in 

9 

66 
66 

88 

80 

108 
LT9 

1,651 

1 .  388 

158 
L64 

.74 
L01 
.98 

6,118 

894 
508 

B.  il 

Average 

.89 

Dnroc  Jersey: 

•  experiment 

Mil  experimi  at 
Third  experiment 

in 
9 
in 

58 
80 
58 

84 

88 

11.-) 
187 

388 

1,517 
1,575 

153 

hi » 

.90 

l.Ki 

6,184 

837 

.98 

4111 

2.27 

Yorkshire: 

•  experiment 
ad  experiment  - 

Third  experiment 

6 
9 
5 

89 

88 

86 

i»; 

109 
836 

tt; 

L64 

a 
i.if, 
Lie 

1,788 

505 

8.04 

A\  erage 

1.04 

8.14 

1<>4 

Tamworth: 

First  experiment 
Second  experiment  . 
Third  experixm 

7 
10 

IB 

80 

;-. 

58 

L04 

-.'in 

m 

508 

1,589 
1,854 

LOO 
1.08 

8.81 

Aver             

.93 

IV, 

iL  No.  48,  Iowa  Bxpt  Sta. 

These  figures  show  thai  the  Yorkshires  averaged  highest  in  average 
daily  gains,  with  th<'  Berkshires  and  Dnroc  Jerseys  tied  for  second 
place,  and  the  Tamworth  i>i,urs  next.  In  feed  (digestible  dry  matter) 
required  for  LOO  pounds  gain,  the  Dnroc  Jerseys  were  first  in  Least 
requirement,  with  the  Poland  Chinas  next,  the  Forkshires  third,  and 
the  Tamworths  Last.  In  cost  of  LOO  pounds  gain  the  Forkshiree  were 
first,  the  Poland  chinas  second,  the  Dnroc  Jerseys  third,  and  the 
Tamworths  fifth.  This  evidence  seems  to  disprove  the  charges  some- 
times made  against  the  bacon  breeds,  namely,  that  these  pigs  make 
Bmaller  and  more  expensive  gains  than  those  of  other  breeds. 


THE    HOG    [NDUSTRY. 


181 


Ontario  eocperimenin. — From  the  Ontario  Agricultural  College,  Day 
has  reported  a  number  of  experiments  with  six  Leading  breeds.  The 
pigs  were  i\'(\  for  comparative  purposes.  Atthe  close  of  each  feeding 
period  carcasses  were  examined  for  their  suitability  for  the  export 
trade,  and  reports  were  made  thereon  by  the  packets  who  killed  the 
pigs.  The  following  table  shows  the  results  of  the  feeding  tests  for 
five  years,  with  the  average  of  four: 

Breed  tests  of  pigs— five  years'  experiments.'1 


Breed. 

Xearoi 

test. 

Average 
weight  at 
beginning. 

Average 

weight  at 

close. 

Num- 
ber of 
days 
fed. 

Average 

daily 
gain. 

Feed 
eaten. 

Meal  per 

loo  pounds 

gain. 

Berkshire 

1896 
1897 
L898 

1899 

Pounds. 
66 

50 

Pounds. 
185 

145 
170 

117 

90 

112 

Pounds. 
1.010 

1.020 
1.070 

Pounds. 

475 
301 

Pounds. 

398.00 
327.17 
369. 79 

''318.28 

1900 

.803 

409.00 

.  '.17s 

378.  74 

1896 
1897 
1898 
1899 

69 

52 
69 

190 

128 
187 

117 

90 

112 

1.030 

.840 
1.050 

507 
253 

417.00 
332.89 
383  22 

b  349. 99 

.  1900 

.701 

474.00 

Average  of  4  tests 

.905 

401.78 

■  1896 
1897 
1898 

Duroc  Jersey 

62 
65 
59 

199 
149 
179 

117 

90 

112 

1.160 
.  940 

1.070 

580 
302 

424.00 
358.05 
376.04 

1899 
1900 

6  337. 10 

.  883 

426.00 

Average  of  4  tests 

1.014 

396.02 

1896 
1897 

1898 
L899 

1900 

Chester  White 

62 
52 
56 

185 
127 
175 

117 

90 
112 

1.050 

.830 

1  060 

557 
255 

452.00 
340.00 

377  77 

b  336. 68 

.  666 

433. 00 

Average  of  4  tests 

.902 

400.69 

Yorkshire „  _ >_ 

1896 
1897 
1898 
1899 
.  1900 

50 
60 
52 

177 

144 
176 

117 

90 
112 

1.080 

.930 

1.100 

589 
285 

468.00 
340.62 
a50.10 

&334.85 
422.00 

.930 

Average  of  4  tests 

1.010 

395.18 

1896 
1897 
1898 
1899 
1900 

Tarn  worth. 

54 
52 

48 

171 
139 
167 

117 

90 
112 

1.000 

.970 
1.060 

469 

289 

400.00 

330.92 

377.  77 

&  331. 16 



.642 

462.00 

Average  of  4  tests 

.918 

390.17 

a  An.  Rpts.,  1896-1900,  Ontario  Agricultural  College,    b  Dry  matter,  not  included  in  averages. 


182 


BUREAU    OF    ANIMAL    [NDU8TBY. 


These  figures  show  thai  the  Duroc  Jersey  averaged  first  in  avei 
<lail\  gains  with  L.014  pounds,  the  other  breeds  following  in  thi> 
order:  Yorkshire,  Berkshire,  Tamworth,  Poland  China,  ami  Ches 
ter  White.  There  is,  however,  eery  Little  difference  between  the 
I  > 1 1 1 « ►<•  Jersey,  Yorkshire,  and  Berkshire  in  respect  of  av< 
daily  gains,  and  the  Tamworth,  Poland  China,  and  Chester  White 
form  a  second  group,  with  average  daily  gains  of  -lightly  more  than 
0.90  pound.  In  the  economy  of  gain  the  Berkshire  stands  first  with 
378.74  pounds  as  the  amount  of  meal  required  for  LOO  pounds  <>f  gain, 
the  oilier  breeds  following  in  this  order:  Tamworth,  Yorkshire, 
Duroc  Jersey,  Chester  Wnite,  and  Poland  china.  In  this  respect 
the  Berkshire  is  quite  a  Little  in  the  Lead.  The  Yorkshire  and 
Duroc  Jersey  form  a  group  around  395  pounds  and  tin-  Chester 
White  and  Poland  china  another  group  at  LOO  pounds.  The  Tam- 
worth required  390.17  pounds  meal  for  LOO  pounds  gain  -somewhat 
Less  than  the  Yorkshire  and  Duroc  Jersey. 

Minnesota  experiments. — At  the  Minnesota  Station,  Shaw0  fed  pigs 
of  the  Tamworth  and  Yorkshire  breeds  in  comparison  with  Poland 
China.      Like    the    Iowa    1  rials,   this   was    really  a  comparison  of  the 

feeding  ability  of  pigs  of  the  bacon  type  with  those  of  the  Lard  type. 
They  were  fed  in  pens  8  by  L2  feet,  with  access  to  yards,  lnit  with- 
out past  ore.     The  grain  fed  consisted  of  shorts,  corn  meal,  and  ground 

barley  in  varying  proportions,  and  in  the  first  experiment  skim 
milk  was  fed.  In  both  experiments  green  and  succulent  feed,  such  as 
pease,  <>at>.  corn,  rape,  and  roots,  was  led.  I  >uring  t  he  first  experiment 
one  lot  of  Poland  China  pigs  was  on  a  ration  that  was  mainly  of  corn 
meal,  some  shorts  being  fed  in  add  it  ion.  The  pigs  in  the  fust  experi- 
ment were  sold  at  $4  per  100  pounds  and  those  of  Hie  second  at  - 
pei-  loo  pounds,  'fhe  following  are  the  results  for  the  purebred  lots: 
Bn  •  d  t<  sts  <>/  pigs— two  i  xpt  rim*  nU. 


Ntim- 
ber 

Num- 

Av.r- 

dailv 
gain. 

ed  eaten. 

Breed. 

begin 
ning. 

ber 

of 

days 

fed. 

M.al. 

Milk. 

i:,:;,::;:  ***■ 

First  experiment: 

Poland  china 

Poland  China 
rn-fed > 

Tamworth 

Large  Yorkshire  . 

l  experiment: 

Tamworth 

Yorkshire  . 

Poland  China 

3 

3 
3 
B 

B 
B 

8 

Lb*. 

H 

:»l 

41 

n 

Lbs, 

B8 

s 

119 

184 
Iffl 

un 

UM 
UK 

UM 
UM 

Lbs. 
0.70 

.96 

,M 
LOB 

- 

Lb*. 
BBS 

4  is 

419 

41.") 
UM 

Lb*. 
M 

;i 

44 
58 

U.S. 

148 

144 

lf.l 

Dollars. 

8.93 
8.01 

8.U 

Dollars. 

a  44» 

Wisconsin  experiments. — The   Wisconsin   station'   tabulated   the 
results  of  feeding  for  the  different   breeds  and  crosses  used  in  an 


I 


hteentb  An.  Rpt..  p.  57. 


THE    H<><;    [NDU8TRY. 


188 


experimenl  with  pease  and  corn  meal.     The  following  table  shows  the 
averages: 

R<  sk/Is  of  feeding  }>i</*  of  carious  breeds  a  ml  crosses. 


Breeding:. 

Xuin 

berof 
pigs. 

Average 

amounl 

nf  grain 

eaten 

dally. 

Average 
daily 
gain. 

Total 

gain 

per  pig. 

Peed 
per  im 
pounds 

gain. 

(  'nst    )).T 

LOO 

pounds 
gain. 

Inter- 
nal fat. 

Thick- 
ness oi 
surface 
fat. 

Etasorback-Poland  China 

Razor  back-Berksh  i  r,  • 

:.' 
2 
2 

4 

Pounds. 

4.: 27 

a  52 

Pound. 
0.985 

.57 
.875 
.  52 

Pounds. 
166 

11 '.i 
148 

no 

/'omuls. 
433 
505 
400 
547 

Dollars. 
4.987 

5.  772 
4.556 
6. 227 

1 'on  nils. 

13.85 

9.52 

9.07 
10.378 

Inches. 

2  705 
2. 32 
2.21 

Rav.<  >ri  );tck 

1.99 

Particular  attention  is  called  to  the  low  gains  of  the  Razorbacks, 
the  Large  amount  of  feed  thej^  required  for  100  pounds  gain,  and  the 
large  amount  of  internal  fat. 

In  the  Wisconsin a  experiment  to  compare  pease  and  middlings  with 
coin  meal  the  Berkshires  made  an  average  gain  in  one  hundred  and 
twenty-six  days  of  169  pounds — an  average  of  1.34  pounds  daily  for 
each  pig.  The  Poland  Chinas  gained  153  pounds  each — an  average 
of  1.21  pounds  each  daily.  The  Yorkshires,  leaving  out  of  considera- 
tion a  pig  that  fed  poorly,  made  an  average  gain  in  one  hundred  and 
twenty-six  days  of  137  pounds — an  average  daily  gain  each  of  1.08 
pounds.  The  authors  of  the  Wisconsin  report  state  that  this  should 
not  be  regarded  as  a  breed  test. 

These  experiments,  taken  in  connection  with  the  evidence  of  inves- 
tigators over  the  entire  country,  undoubtedly  show  that  representative 
pigs  of  the  different  breeds  do  not  differ  materially  either  in  the  rate  of 
gain  or  the  economy  with  which  the  gains  are  made.  Any  marked  dif- 
ferences in  the  breeds  will  be  manifested  in  the  suitability  of  the  fat- 
tened animals  for  market  and  the  quality  of  the  carcass  on  the  block. 
A  very  notable  feature  is  the  showing  of  the  bacon  breeds  when 
compared  with  the  lard  breeds.  The  fact  that  a  pig  is  a  Yorkshire 
or  a  Tamworth  can  not  be  taken  as  prima  facie  evidence  that  it  will 
make  slow  and  expensive  gains. 

Value  of  different  crosses. — At  the  Minnesota  Station,  Shaw6  fed 
four  lots  of  pigs  to  determine  the  relative  value  of  Yorkshire  pigs  of 
first  and  second  crosses.  The  pigs  of  the  first  cross  were  by  a  pure- 
bred Large  Improved  Yorkshire  boar  out  of  a  high-grade  Berkshire 
sow.  Those  of  the  second  were  sired  by  the  same  Yorkshire  boar, 
out  of  a  sow  whose  dam  was  the  grade  Berkshire  that  was  the  dam  of 
the  first  litter  and  whose  sire  was  a  purebred  Yorkshire.  The  four 
lots  were  therefore  as  nearly  identical  in  breeding  as  possible  without 
extreme  inbreeding. 

Lots  I  and  III  were  first-cross  pigs  and  Lots  II  and  IV  second  cross. 
Lots  I  and  II  received  a  corn-and-oats  diet  and  Lots  III  and  IV  a 


"Seventeenth  An.  Rpt..  p.  10. 


h  Bui.  No.  60. 


L84 


i:i  1:1   \r    OF    animal    [NDUSTB1  , 


barlej  and  oats  ration;  and  each  lot  had  an  8  by  i_  foot  pen  in  a  pig- 
gery, with  a  small  paddock  adjoining,  where  they  ran  for  an  hour  or 
two  dail\  . 

The  corn  and-oats  ration  was  l  pari  corn  to  3  parts  oats  during  the 
first  period;  during  the  second,  2:2;  during  the  third,  3 : 1 ;  and  dur- 
ing the  fourth,  corn  only.  Iii  the  barley-and-oats  rations  barley 
substituted  corn  in  the  same  proportion.  Grain  was  ground,  soaked 
twelve  hours,  and  a  Little  salt  given  at  each  tVo<i.  The  pigs  received 
all  they  would  cat  with  relish.  Some  green  feed,  such  as  corn,  second- 
growth  clover,  rape,  and  cabbage,  was  given. 

l'<  <  ding  t<  sis  of  different  crosses. 


Breeding. 

s 

— 

1 

= 

1 

•g 

I 

it 

II 
11 

2-2 

0 

s 

- 

c 

i 

s 

- 
c 

I 

a 

>. 
t 

Dfl 

7 

2 

« 
a 

= 

: 

- 

If 

E 

-  | 
c  § 

I   : 

4 
1 

A 

< 

H 

- 

E- 

y- 

" 

•_• 

0 

_- 

Days. 

U.S. 

L6«. 

L6*. 

/./,*. 

L6». 

/./,s 

Dolb. 

:: 

L08 

847 

60] 

354 

112 

1  06 

L,8M 
1,488 

111 

l  61 

Lo1   !  I.  second  cross 

3 

MM 

m 

808 

11:.' 

I...i  III.  tit--:  cram 

3 

108 

I1SI 

1,178 

Id  >1  IV.  Becond  cross 

:; 

in. 

878 

587 

112 

l .  28 1 

KH 

L88 

Other  comparative  results  were  as  follows: 

Average  daily  gain  of  first-cross. pound  0,  M 

rage  daily  gain  of  second-cross     do  .92 

Cost  of  100  pounds  gain  of  first  cross                               dollars  1.74 

Cost  of  100  pounds  gainvof  second  cross                              do  1.93 

Comparing  differing  crosses.—  Shaw a  conducted  two  experiments 
io  compare  crosses  of  different  breeds.  The  pigs  were  iv<1  in  8  by  L2 
fool  pens,  wit  li  access  to  yards  and  Lots  ad  joining  for  exercise,  but  no 

pasture.  They'were  fed  eighteen  weeks.  'The  teed  was  a  mixture  of 
shorts,  com,  and  barley,  some  green  and  succulent  U-vd  in  Beason, 
such  a>  peas,  oats,  rape,  corn,  and  roots  was  given  in  each  experi- 
ment, and  all  conditions  were  similar,  except  that  during  the  first 
experiment  the  pigs  bad  skim  milk. 

The  pig8  of   tli**  first  experiment   were  sold    at    $4    per    100    pounds: 

those  of  the  second,  at  $4.85  per  i(,(l  pounds. 
The  breeding  was  as  follows: 

First  experiment : 

Tamworth  Poland  China  cross. 

nd  cross,  Larue  [znproved  Yorkshire  on  Berkshire. 
Third cr  unproved  Yorkshire  on  Berkshire. 

Large  Unproved  Yorkshire  Poland  China  en 

«Bul.  No.  78,  Mini  Ixpt.  Sta. 


THE    BOG    [NDUSTRY. 


185 


Second  experiment : 

Third  cross,  Large  Improved  Yorkshire  on  Berkshire. 

Large  Improved  Yorkshire  Poland  China  cross. 

Tamworth  Poland  China  cross. 

Large  Improved  Yorkshire  Poland  China  cross  (Minnesota-bred  dam). 

Large  Improved  Yorkshire-Berkshire  cross. 

In  the  first  experiment  "The  Tam worth-Poland  China  and  Large 
Improved  Yorkshire— Poland  China  crosses  were  obtained  similar  to 
those  above  described"  and  from  a,  pure  Tamworth  and  pure  Large 
Improved  Yorkshire  sire,  respectively.  The  second  cross,  or  grade, 
of  Yorkshire  on  Berkshire  was  from  a  dam  the  progeny  of  a  Large 
Improved  Yorkshire  sire  and  a  dam  essentially  Berkshire,  but  not  reg- 
istered. The  third  cross  of  Yorkshire  on  Berkshire  was  of  breeding 
similar  in  kind,  but  once  removed  further  from  the  original  Berkshire 
dam." 

In  the  second  experiment  there  were  some  slight  changes;  the  pigs 
of  one  Yorkshire— Poland  China  lot  were  out  of  a  dam  reared  in  the 
corn  belt,  while  those  of  the  other  were  out  of  a  Minnesota-bred  dam. 
"In  several  instances,  however,  the  blood  lines  were  not  only  the 
same,  but  the  animals  in  the  experiment  were  from  the  same  sire  and 
dam,  as  were  those  of  the  previous  year."     The  results  follow: 

Feeding  tests  of  crossbred  irigs. 


Breeding. 


First  experiment : 

Tamworth-Poland  China 

Second  cross,  Yorkshire-Berk- 
shire  

Third  cross,  Yorkshire-Berk- 
shire   

Yorkshire-Poland  China 

Second  experiment: 

Third  cross,  Yorkshire-Berk- 
shire  

Yorkshire-Poland  China. 

Tamworth-Poland  China 

Yorkshire-Poland  China  (Min- 
nesota-bred dam) 

Yorkshire-Berkshire 


©.H 
is.  it. 

© 

> 


Lbs. 
47 


56 


02 

>> 

05 

'C 

c 

a 

°d 

© 

a. 

© 

cS 

& 

a 

> 

E3 

< 

£ 

Lbs. 

118 

126 

181 

126 

104 

126 

128 

126 

12<j 

126 

166 

126 

147 

126 

158 

126 

152 

126 

Lbs. 

0.<>4 


1.02 


1.00 
1.32 
1.17 

1.25 
1.21 


Feed  eaten. 


T3 
0 

p. 

3  .a 

Til 


Grain.  Milk 


Lbs. 
456 


1.04        499 


527 
564 


Green     Pi 
■   feed.     - 

8 


Lbs. 
83 


410        47 

483         44 


427 
577 

482 


Lbs. 

80 


108 


142 
145 


252 

252 

252 

252 
196 


Dolls. 
2.24 


2.1' 


2.  28 
2.16 


2. 25 
2.28 
2.16 


2.18 
2.43 


Dolls. 
1.61 


1.84 


1.46 

1.87 


2.98 
3.86 
3.64 

3.89 
3.38 


Among  Shaw's  conclusions  are  the  following  remarks : 

That  the  experiments  do  not  sustain  the  view  that  the  results  will  be  less  satis- 
factory from  each  succeeding  cross  of  Yorkshire  on  Berkshire. 

That  the  cross  of  Large  Improved  Yorkshire  and  Tamworth  breeds  upon  the 


a  See  experiments  with  crossbred  swine,  pp.  183,  184. 


i:i  REATJ    01     \  MM  a  I.    [NDU9TB>  . 

Poland  China  bows  of  the  corn-reared  type*  producer  animals  at  onot 
Bhapel) .  of  better  growth,  and  relatively  more  profitable  than  pigs  from  the 
Hunt  i< med  bows, 

im-  i.i   ENi  I.   <  »i     BREED   « >M    THE   I    \l:«  488. 

For  the  sake  of  coin  enienee  the  term  "slaughter  test"  is  used  in 
this  bulletin  i<>  include  everything  from  weighings  on  the  floor  of  a 
packinghouse  to  a  chemical  analysis.  Sufficient  attention  has  not 
been  paid  to  the  effect  of  feci  and  conditions  of  management  <»n  the 
carcass,  but  the  present  drift  of  sentiment  among  workers  in  animal 
husbandry  |»«»ini>  to  a  more  thorough  Btudyof  the  carcass  in  detail  as 
a  means  of  solving  the  problems  that  still  confront  the  student  and 
the  feeder.  No  one  can  doubt  that  such  investigations  will  have  a 
high  value  when  applied  under  feed-lot  conditions. 

At  the  close  of  the  Last  two  [owa  experiments  most  of  the  hogs 
shipped  to  Chicago  and  sold  on  the  open  market.  In  both  experi- 
ments the  different  breeds  lia<l  been  fed  on  practically  the  same 
rations,  and  all  conditions  of  feeding  ami  management  were  similar; 
so  that  whatever  differences  might  be  found  in  tin-  carcasses  could 
verj  properly  be  ascribed  t»»  breed  influence.  In  the  packing  house 
where  the  hogs  were  killed  careful  records  were  kept  of  the  slaugh- 
tering, ami  slaborate  reports  made  of  these  records.  The  following 
table  has  been  arranged  from  these  results.  It  shows  the  percentage 
of  dressed  weight  of  each  breed  ami  the  total  and  average  weights  of 
the  heads  and  viscera  for  each  breed: 

NOTES  OS    Tin:   HU.i.i.w  im,    i  \MI.K. 

Xiitk. — The  writer  is  under  obligations  to  Swift  &  Co..  Chicago,  who  killed  the  I 
following  explanation  of  terms  used  in  these  slaughter  testa  that  are  not  self-explanatory: 

Hi  nils,  i/ross. — The  gross  weight  of  the  heads  it  from  the  hogs,  with  tongues  and  lean 

meal  In. 

Head*,  net.    The  same  heads  trimmed  for  tank— -tongues,  cheek  meat,  and  cheek-mi 

taken  out. 

Chet  kmeat.    Refers  to  the  lean  meat  in  the  cheek  of  the  hog.    Scientifically  expressed,  Includes 
masseter   pt<  rygoidt  us  .<//<  mus  and  extt  rnus)  muscles. 

Cae<  k-meatfat.    The  fat  trimmed  off  in  saving  the  lean  meat. 

Hum  im  ,,  -  to  the  facing  of  fat  which  is  taken  off  the  inside  of  the  hams  In  order  to 

give  them  a  lean  appearance  and  is  taken  off  in  all  eases  where  American  cut  hams  are  made 
Where  English  Long-cut  ham-  are  made  this  facing  of  fat  is  left  oil, accounting  for  the  fad  that 
in  some  of  the  tests  ham  facings  are  shown;  in  other  tests  they  are  not. 

Plucks.    The  liver,  heart,  and  lungs  comprise  what  is  called  the  pluck.    Total  weight  of  the 
livers,  hearts,  and  lungs  added  together  should  agree  with  the  total  weight  of  the  plucks 
differences  in  ls,.c  test,  but  weights  balance  approximately  in  1886  test. 

Bladders,  grot.    The  weight  of  the  bladders  as  taken  from  the  hogs  filled,  more  or  less,  with 
urine. 

Bladdt  ,s.  ui  C— Weighl  of  the  same  bladders  with  the  urn  rat. 

Out  fat. — \ Large  Intestines  washed  out. 

Caul  f'ut.     <  Mnentum. 
',  fat.    Mesentery' 

Floating  colon  and  rectum  combined  is  called  the  bung  u'nt.  and  bung 
.  is  weight  before  being  cleaned 

Bung  guts,  net.    Same  as  above,  but  cleaned. 

Pauncket  w  :    •   macht  is  taken  from  the  hogs 

Paum  ><•  i,  in  t .    Weight  of  stomach-  cleaned 
iter! 

Bui,  No.  18, 


THE    1 1<><;     INDUSTRY. 


187 


© 

1 


1 

— 


Pounds. 

s 

s 

$5 

r~. 

r: 

M 

3  S 

^2 

so 

=  s 

« 

E  3 
E  S 

C        1! 

i 
% 

- 

4  =  a 

8 

-'   ?i 

7 

S  £ 

r.'    us 

1- 

i-     CO 

E  3 

s 

ai 

>■ 
<D 

3 

3 

■§    -    •" 

1 

5 

=  = 

id   cc 

5  S 

CC    ~r 

- 

E  E 

Js 

S  = 

35 

CC    g 

s 

3* 

•3  S  .8  id 

8  8 

=5 

CO 

8  8 
18  4 

5 

»c 

E  5 

-  38 

E   E 

8  8 

s  si 

■  c 

0>  ®  c3 

P2 

a 

8  8 

§ 

8  § 

c-i   p-i 

5j 

8  S 

OQ     iH 

os 

8  5S 

§3 

8  J2 

eo 

i— i 

II 

4  s  g 

S    ©"    oo" 
1 

s 

8  8 

oo'    CO 

V 

8  S 

CO     SO 

22 

8  8 

«o*    1- 

^ 

8  S 

x'    t^ 

S 

8  JS 

oo"   cc 

aj 

0) 

5b 

2 
0 
H 

.§88 

S    od    x" 
1 

3S 

'8  8 

t-    CO 

g 

8  8 

s 

8.  8 

iO    ?o 

- 

8  ^ 

X      SO 

e 

8  IS 

00    CO 

ED 

+3 

^88 

00 
00 

Q     O 

5   c 
o?   $ 

28 

8  8 
52  S 

00 

8  8 
5'  g 

1- 

8  8 

53 

x' 

8  8 
ol  S 

s 

35 

i 

o 

0 

3  8  8 

00 

©" 

8  £ 

iei   co 

i— <    •>* 

to 

8  52 

3     ;  8    S 

S     8  ;* 

8  8 

o 

8  &  |S 

"©  CD 

|  8  8 

gec^" 

^ 

8  S 

W3     r-i 

s 

8  S 

■J     iH 

3  II  8  S 

CC     CM 

(M 

CC 

8  S 

n5   *i 

eS 

8  ol 

-^H     r-i 

5 

18  8 

3 

S  8 

od 

5     8 

od   i- 

O 
X 

8  8 

S  8 

E    2 

38     -' 

o   os 

o    -# 

09     X 

X     OS 

os    ~ 

OS     -P 

< 
P 

3 
I 

a 

cc 

v- 

a 

s 

> 

-" 

) 

0 

a 

a 

Eh 

$ 

e- 
a 

s 
< 

) 

1 

6 

i 

s 

P 

O 

P 
K 

a 

> 

CC 

a 

a 

= 

i 

CC 
01 

I 

s 

> 

) 

CD 

: 

a 

iss 


1:1   i:i   \r    OF    AM  \]  \l.    in  DU8TE1  . 


: 
c 


»*1 


<: 
&B 


1 

t 

I 

- 

ri 

- 

8 

: 

- 

- 
1 

S* 

5     = 

:: 

ad 

2§g 

- 

-    ■ 

5 

s  = 

- 

- 

Tr 

M 

-              B, 

s   j 

5 

s  1 

i 

- 

i 

c 

i 

— 

s 

£ 

E 

1 

= 

ed 

8 

:  ■ 

E 

M 

E 

- 

PQ 

- 

4     s 

a 

3 

E 

— 

: 

S 

a 
a 

1 

E   E 

^  — 

= 

i  5 

3 

a 

I   E 

£     £ 

S 

— 

E  i 

i    - 

£ 

- 

1 

jj   E 
|   -   •- 

1 

S 

E  ;: 

s 

g    ©1 

•-     - 

2 

=      - 

fe 

8  8 

-    - 

s 

E  5 

S 

■ 

: 

> 

3 

■3  8  8 

I  p.  si 
1 

s 

ed 

3 

si 

E    E 

3 

8  i 

ed 

E  5 
-"  i 

8 

©i 

E   E 

K  S3 

! 

CO 

c 
0 

- 

1  -  ^ 

i 

se 

ed 

E   £ 

BQ 

— 

t6 

E  £ 

S  5 

- 

=  s 

a  4 

E   E 
5  S 

3 

il 

=  - 

— 

|  8   ; 

Is 

E 
-    : 

8  S 

-     £ 

SB 

E   E 

-     a 

■i 

8    j 

7 

j 

j 

Q 

■ 

- 

5 

7 

< 

S 

1 

E 

(5 

i 

"7 
it 

■- 

> 

- 

1 

THE     IKKi     INM'STKY. 


L89 


1 
> 

' 

ire 

i- 

•re 
ire 

i- 

i  - 

1- 

- 

1 

to 

i  - 

> 
A 

i 

© 

3  S  8 

1  s  3 

s 
ft, 

.— i 

8  8 

1-H 

s 

8  8 

C     rH 

i—i     i— I 

* 

8  8 

/ 

r-i 

E   E 

rH     DO 

l—l     rH 

B 

E   E 

rH 

3 

S 

^88 

8 

£ 

8  5 

SO    rj 

rH         ire    »6 

rH    rH 

3.8 

o   >re 

00     i~ 

55  iJ 

ej 

+-> 
Pi 
bo 

1 

GO 

© 

o*  8  8 

1    S   £i 

1 

3     5  5 

S              H      CO 

s 

8  8 

8 

ci 

8  § 

ed   *-^ 

8 

8  8 

CM     ©S 

cc 
ci 

8  8 

CO     00 

8 

ce 

3 

s  3  5 

s 

CO 

E   E 

8 

8  8 

rH     >re 

CO     CM 

8 

CO 

8  8 

cm  <m 

CO 

3 

8  8 

CO     §3 

CO 
CO 

8  8 
1 

8 

bo 

&0 

ri  8  £ 

"2     CO    N 

8S 

8  S 

oi   cm 

8? 

s  s 

CO 

8  S 

CO 
CI 

8  £ 

CO     C! 

a 

s  s 

(M 

? 

to  . 

its 

pi 
pq 

oj    8 

is 

8 

© 

1—1 

8 

ire 

a 

8 

03 

Pi 
bO 
60 
Pi 

P) 

pq 

*  8  8 
i 

£§ 

8  8 

«o  cc 

s 

8  8 

** 

8  8 

cc 
ire 

8  S 

t^   cd 

g 

g  8 

•«*'     CO 

s 

1 

«  8  8 

1  ^  S 
s 

tH 
rH 

rH 

8  8 

GO     t- 

rH 
rH 

8  8 

* 

8.   ^ 
ire   ire 

8  £ 

cc"    >* 

cl 

8  8 

ire  l- 

« 

< 
< 
f 

P 

3 

) 
) 

5 

a 

1 

g 

> 
< 

) 

a 

Eh 

CD 
id 

--. 
0 
> 
< 

) 

CD 

CD 
t( 
US 

< 

B 

,F 
ic 

O 

p 

cc 

o 
Ph 

CD 

CD 

< 

> 

CD 

£ 

CD 

■-a 

h 

P 

0 

1 

r 

CD 

a 

C 

CD 

> 

<1 

190 


i:i    i:i    M      "I       \  MM  AI.     I  N  DU81  Rl  . 


The  .i\  <m-.il:<'  <»t  these  teste  shows  the  Yorkshire  i<>  be  in  the  lead  in 
dressed  weight,  the  other  breeds  following  in  this  order:  Poland 
China,  Tamworth,  Chester  WTiite,  Doroc  Jersey,  and  Berkshire,  ili<* 
variation  being  from  79.18  per  cent  i«»  77.'  >\  | >« * r  « -•  *n i . 

Relativi    weights  of  vital  organs.    -The   \v<-iL.rlii   <>!'  vital  organ 
highly  important.     To  ascertain  whal  variations  the  Iowa    test  showed 
in  this  respect  the  table  1>»-1<>\\  lias  been  arranged.     Ii  ^h<>\\>  the  per- 
centages of  the  weights  of  iln-  vital  organs  i<»  live  weight   for  each 
breed  in  each  experiment,  with  the  average  of  l><>th. 

The  average  live  weights  of  I  he  hogs  al  the  abattoir  were  as  follows: 


.  ighU  of  hogs  of  differ*  nf  breeds— Iowa  '<i»  rinu  rtf*\ 

\\v 

|    Lbs. 

Berkshire                             ISO 

Tamworth        

Chester  White                     ... .        1" 

1-1 

IMand  China 

101 

Dnroc  Jersey                                        

IX) 

Yorkshire                                                                                                              

Helat 

■llits  oj 

vital  <>r 

1 /I  ins   of 

/iiifi  Inn 

/  hogs.* 

Breed. 

Nnm- 

Melts 

i  spleen  i. 

Tongues. 

Kidneys 

Gullets. 

Plucks. 

Berkshire: 

• 

.".  /•  cent. 

• 

Fir-i  experiment 

IO 

0.16 

.1  16 

1 .  88 

Second  experiment 

•■• 

.09 

•M 

m 

Average 

.13 

Z\ 

.46 

3.08 

L50 

.81 

Tamworth: 

First  experiment 

in 

86 

• 

1  :*i 

.30 

•lid  experiment 

) 

Lfl 

.41 

Average 

! 

81 

Chester  White: 

si  experiment 

ii 

.25 

.19 

.00 

l.:,7 

»nd  experiment 

- 

.10 

.  in 

.Ml 

.:*; 

LSI 

Average 



.18 

8  n 

1.45 

.30 

Poland  ( 'hina: 

Pint  experiment 

- 

.38 

}.-, 

l.:.-. 

ml  experiment 

9 

.i:» 

80 

.85 

l  .:,: 

.17 

.34 

Dui' 

Pirst  experiment 

8 

.  »i 

.18 

.60 

■ 

•ml  experiment 

'.• 

.13 

.81 

in 

.a 

Average 

18 

.41 

.25 

.45 

- 

Yorkshire: 

->  experiment 

;i 

» 

41 

a 

:i]n 

L.40 

nd  experiment 

t 

18 

.is 

2.87 

1.40 

o  Bui.  No  18, Iowa  Bhq 


THE    HOG    [NDU8TBY.  191 

Relative  weights  of  vital  organs  of  purebred  hogs — Continued. 


Breed. 

Lungs. 

0.78 
L10 

Blad- 
ders 

Blad 
ders,  t  i .  •  t 

Total 
weight  of 

Bung 
guts,  net. 

Small 
guts,  net . 

St,,,,. 

achs,  net . 

Berkshire: 

First  experiment 
Second  experiment 

; 

0.05 

/•■  r  a  a/ . 
L0.79 
LI.  99 

Percent. 
0.26 

P>  rcent. 
1.32 

l.m 

/'<  /  <i  ni . 
0.68 

0.08 

.92 

11.19 

.  29 

L.16 

. »;'.) 

Tamworth: 

First  experiment 

Second  experiment 

.'.HI 

1.28 

05 

111. (XI 

10.58 

.30 
.35 

L.55 

.93 

.70 

.06 

.si 

Average — 

1.01 

L0.19 

.31 

1.37 

.74 

Chester  White: 

First  experiment 

Second  experiment  . 

.62 
.97 

.(17 

.06 

10.89 
10.77 

28 

1.2.") 
1.04 

.(12 
.76 

Average 

.79 

10. 83 

.26 

1.15 

.69 

Poland  China: 

First  experiment 

Second  experiment  . 

.65 

.73 

'"m 

.03 

8.32 

10.17 

9.30 

.26 
.29 

1.17 
1.02 

.46 
.75 

.69 

.28 

1.09 

.61 

Dttroc  Jersey: 

First  experiment 

Second  experiment  . 

.83 

.80 

.41 

.11 

10. 44 

11.98 

.39 

.42 

1.10 
1.36 

.60 
.80 

Average 

.82 

11.14 

.40 

.70 

Yorkshire : 

First  experiment 

Second  experiment  . 

.93 
1.03 

.  06 

.20 

10.03 

8. 84 

.32 

.93 

.SH 

.(i7 
.64 

Average 

.96 

.27 

.91 

.66 

In  the  relative  amounts  of  spleen  there  are  only  two  variations  from 
a  general  average — the  Tamworths,  with  0.23  per  cent,  and  the  Berk- 
shires,  with  0.13  per  cent. 

In  weight  of  kidneys  the  Poland  Chinas  lead,  with  0.31  per  cent, 
the  Berkshires  being  lowest,  with  0.23  per  cent. 

There  does  not  appear  to  be  any  particularly  constant  influence  due 
to  breed  or  type  in  the  relative  weights  of  those  vital  organs  that  con- 
si  itute  the  pluck.  The  combined  weights  of  liver,  heart,  and  lungs 
should  approximate  that  under  the  head  of  pluck;  if,  therefore,  there 
is  any  influence  of  breed  on  the  development  and  Aveights  of  these 
organs  we  should  expect  to  find  evidences  of  it  in  uniform  and  con- 
stant differences  in  weights.  In  the  weight  of  plucks  the  Berkshires 
lead  in  the  average,  with  3.03  per  cent,  the  Tamworth,  Yorkshire, 
Poland  China,  Chester  White,  and  Duroc  Jersey  following  in  the  order 
named,  the  lowest  weight  being  2.86  per  cent  of  the  live  weight.  Yet, 
in  relative  weights  of  the  organs  that  are  included  in  the  pluck,  the 
Berkshires  are  but  once  in  the  lead — in  the  weight  of  the  heart,  where 
less  variation  is  seen  than  in  the  weights  of  livers  and  lungs,  the 


L92  BUREAU    OF     \MM.\I.    [NDUBTRY. 

Yorkshire  being  the  only  breed  iliai  shows  mnch  variation  from  the 
general  average.  The  variation  in.  weights  of  Livers  and  Inngs  i*> 
quite  erratic.  Poland  Chinas  Lead  in  relative  weight  of  Livers,  with 
L.66  per  cent,  the  other  breeds  following  thus:  Berkshire,  Chester 
While,  Duroc  Jersey,  Yorkshire,  and  Tamworth,  the  least  amount 
being  L.28  per  cent  of  the  Live  weight.  The  Tamworths  Lead  in  rela- 
tive weight  of  lungs,  w  it  li  1  .(|1  per  cent,  the  other  breeds  following  in 
this  order:  Yorkshire,  Berkshire,  Duroc  Jersey,  Chester  White,  and 
Poland  China,  the  Lowest  weight  being  0.69  percent  of  the  live  weight. 

We  find  some  appearance  of  uniformity  in  the  weights  of  stomach 
and  intestines.  The  heading  '"Total  weight  of  guts"  includes,  among 
others,  the  three  items  that  follow  it.  Tin-  Berkshires  lead  in  this 
respect,  with  LI. 19  per  cent,  the  breeds  following  thus :  Duroc  Jersey, 
Chester  White,  Tamworth,  Yorkshire  and  Poland  china,  the  Lowest 
weight  being  9.3  percent  of  the  Live  weight.  The  Duroc  Jerseys  lead 
Ln  net  weight  of  bung  guts,  with  0. 1  per  cent,  the  breeds  following  in 
this  order:  Tamworth,  Berkshire,  Poland  China,  Yorkshire,  and 
Chester  White,  the  lowest  weight  being  0.26  per  cent  of  the  live 
weight.  The  Tamworths  Lead  in  net  weight  of  small  guts,  the  weight 
being  1.37  per  cent;  the  other  breeds  stand  thus:  Duroc  Jersey,  Berk- 
shire, Chester  White,  Poland  China,  and  Yorkshire,  the  Lowest  weight 
being  0.9]  percent.  In  net  weight  of  stomachs  the  Tamworths  lead, 
the  breeds  following  in  this  order:  Duroc  Jersey,  Berkshire,  Chestei 
White,  Yorkshire,  and  Poland  China,  the  weights  ranging  from  0.74 
per  cent  to  0.61  per  cent  of  the  Live  weight.  The  record  of  the  Berk- 
shires and  Duroc  Jerseys  is  seen  to  be  fairly  uniform.  Definite  con- 
elusions  can  not  bedrawn  from  these  figures  and  it  may  be  questioned 
whether,  in  the  Light  of  the  fads  concerning  the  feeding  possibilities  of 
the  differenl  breeds  on  similar  rations,  the  improved  breeds  will  show- 
any  marked  and  uniform  differences  in  the  relative  weights  of  the 
internal  organs  when  U-<\  on  the  same  feed. 

Lard  yii  Id  ofdifft  n  ntbn  <  ds. — By  common  consent,  the  name  "  lard 
hog  "has  beeii  applied  by  many  people  to  that  type  of  animal  the 
development  of  which  lias  very  Largely  been  brought  about  on  Amer- 
can  soil,  in  cont  radisl inct ion  from  the  "bacon  "  type  of  hog  winch  has 
been  brought  to  us  from  Great  Britain  and  Canada. 

The  writer  is  under  obligation  to  Swift  &  Co.,  Chicago,  who  killed 
the  hogs  used  in  the  Iowa  experiments,  for  the  following  information 
regarding  the  lard  yield  of  the  different  breeds  in  the  test  of  L898, 
Concerning  their  figures,  they  say: 

We  did  not,  on  any  of  the  testa  made,  tank  the  fata  of  each  Lot  separately,  the 
amonnta  being  too  small.     However,  we  know  approximately  what  theai 
should  yield  in  rendered  lard,  and  we  have  attached  herewith  a  statement  show- 
ing the  different  test  lota  slaughtered  by  us  during  November,  is'.,s.  and  what  we 
estimate  the  fata,  etc.,  shonld  yield  in  lard. 

Pot  your  information  we  beg  to  say  thai  the  ham  facings,  heads,  cheek-meat 
tat .  u'ull.t  fat,  gat  fat .  can]  and  raffle  fat,  bonea,  tails,  feet,  and  fat  trimmings  are, 


■ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  FLORIDA 


3  1262  09216  6056 


i 


.% 


